Nameless bidding problem
#1
Posted 2008-July-08, 04:25
A9xx
J10x
J9
Qxxx
(1S) - 2D - (p) - p
(2S) - Dbl - (p) - ??
- hrothgar
#2
Posted 2008-July-08, 04:46
#3
Posted 2008-July-08, 05:01
i want to play 3c even in moysian because i won't be forced to ruff in hand with longer trumps.
i guess the other question here intended may be "is this worth a game try?"
#4
Posted 2008-July-08, 05:21
Sambolino, on Jul 8 2008, 12:01 PM, said:
Because 1453 or 1354 would have doubled 1S.
I don't play lebensohl in this position (I play 2NT as two places to play, though arguably natural is quite a good meaning) so I just bid 3D.
#5
Posted 2008-July-08, 05:37
That's more in line with what I'd expect partner to hold for this bidding - a strong overcall.
I'm bidding 3NT.
Harald
#6
Posted 2008-July-08, 06:04
FrancesHinden, on Jul 8 2008, 06:21 AM, said:
Sambolino, on Jul 8 2008, 12:01 PM, said:
Because 1453 or 1354 would have doubled 1S.
I don't play lebensohl in this position (I play 2NT as two places to play, though arguably natural is quite a good meaning) so I just bid 3D.
right, i was rash - although there are some 5431's you'd overcall rather than double
#7
Posted 2008-July-08, 06:14
An alternative interpretation of 2NT followed by 3♦ could be hearts+diamond tolerance. Would that be a 5-card hearts (assuming that p's failure to dbl initially denied a 4-card hearts) or would it be a 4-card hearts (assuming that with five hearts we could just bid them now) ?
#8
Posted 2008-July-08, 07:45
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#9
Posted 2008-July-08, 08:15
We are all connected to each other biologically, to the Earth chemically, and to the rest of the universe atomically.
We're in the universe, and the universe is in us.
#10
Posted 2008-July-08, 08:49
helene_t, on Jul 8 2008, 01:14 PM, said:
That was my immediate assumption, but it's problematic.
If we're going to try to find a heart fit using a "two places to play" 2NT, 2NT-3♦ has to promise enough hearts for advancer to bid hearts himself. Hence, over 2NT, if overcaller has a 1=3=6=3 shape he has to bid 3♣. Is that a good idea?
#11
Posted 2008-July-08, 09:11
skaeran, on Jul 8 2008, 06:37 AM, said:
That's more in line with what I'd expect partner to hold for this bidding - a strong overcall.
I'm bidding 3NT.
He MIGHT have that holding, but what would you have him do with x Kxx AKxxxx AJx? Pass 2♠? I can't see how that can be good bridge.
Partner's rarely have magic cards, so I bid 3♦.
#12
Posted 2008-July-08, 09:15
2N by me really should be 2♦/5♣.
#13
Posted 2008-July-08, 11:15
han, on Jul 8 2008, 05:25 AM, said:
A9xx
J10x
J9
Qxxx
(1S) - 2D - (p) - p
(2S) - Dbl - (p) - ??
IMO 2N=10, 3D=9, 3N=8, 3C=6, _P=2.
#14
Posted 2008-July-08, 12:40
mikeh, on Jul 8 2008, 05:11 PM, said:
skaeran, on Jul 8 2008, 06:37 AM, said:
That's more in line with what I'd expect partner to hold for this bidding - a strong overcall.
I'm bidding 3NT.
He MIGHT have that holding, but what would you have him do with x Kxx AKxxxx AJx? Pass 2♠? I can't see how that can be good bridge.
Partner's rarely have magic cards, so I bid 3♦.
I agree with you on the magic card part, of course.
Actually, I'd bid 2NT if that was natural. But having the agreement that 2NT is never natural, unless it IS, I doubt that's possible.
Harald
#15 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2008-July-08, 14:20
#16
Posted 2008-July-08, 17:55
skaeran, on Jul 8 2008, 06:37 AM, said:
That's more in line with what I'd expect partner to hold for this bidding - a strong overcall.
I'm bidding 3NT.
A downside to weak jump overcalls. I play weak jump overcalls, but I keep seeing that occasional problem described on BBF which would be easily solved with intermediate jump overcalls.
-P.J. Painter.
#17
Posted 2008-July-09, 02:23
- hrothgar
#18
Posted 2008-July-09, 05:43
For instance, he doesn't like being used as a human shield when we're being shot at.
I happen to think it's a very noble way to meet one's maker, especially for a guy like him.
Bottom line is we never let that difference of opinion interfere with anything."