[FrancesHinden]

p.s. I wouldn't have passed over 3D either...

[gnasher]

I would have bid 3♣ over the redouble, expecting to get a chance to bid 3♠. That might have worked well here, or at least it would have made it partner's fault.

[jdeegan]

delete

[jdeegan]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-September-02, 14:11, said:

Obviously not. I suggest you re-read the auction.

My mistake in retelling the auction. We do agree that a penalty double of 4♥ is not best.
Others say you are among the best posters on this forum. I just got irritated after reading drivel like: 'partner cannot have a stiff heart' and 'I would have bid over 3♦'.

One should be careful who one takes bridge lessons from. Else we get the blind leading the blind. I do take lessons from Justin because he is channeling Bob, his dad and others of that caliber. The rest of your opinions are 'interesting'.

[jeffford76]

gnasher, on 2013-September-02, 15:42, said:

That might have worked well here, or at least it would have made it partner's fault.

I'm pretty sure given the hand that doubled it was already partner's fault... (says the partner)

[CSGibson]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-September-01, 12:39, said:

I'm not used to seeing opponents play 10-13 NT at game all. Do you have the vulnerability right?

Vulnerability is right, these opponents don't typically play in the UK

[CSGibson]

jeffford76, on 2013-September-03, 09:16, said:

I'm pretty sure given the hand that doubled it was already partner's fault... (says the partner)

I wasn't going to concentrate on that, I didn't think it was the interesting part of the bridge problem.

[kenberg]

I hate to be boring, but I would have bid the South hand just as it was bid, and over 4♥ I pass.

Over XX: Partner may well have something like a 4-2-5-2, lacking strength to act the first time.He balances, hoping I have spades, figuring 3♦ is, however, likely to be safe if he hears 3♣ instead of the hoped for 2♠. I have spades, I bid spades, just 2♠. Later, I don't see that I have anything to say.

I read the alternative auctions with interest, and maybe they are better, but 2♠ and out is my choice.

[PhilKing]

Just added a second person to my ignore list.

[kayin801]

So what happened? 4H made and 4S is -1?

[cherdano]

jdeegan, on 2013-September-03, 07:24, said:

One should be careful who one takes bridge lessons from.

Yup, but don't worry, after what you wrote in this thread noone will be tempted to take bridge lessons from you.

[JLOGIC]

I would really never save here personally, obv it might work well though.

[CSGibson]

What happened on the actual hand is largely irrelevant - partner had xxx of spades, and opener had AJTx, so 4S was very wrong, but I don't feel that has as much bearing on the problem, since partner didn't actually have a hand worth reopening on opposite a passed hand. Mostly I wanted to see if anyone else thought that this was worth bidding on, or what they thought of the earlier auction to check my own judgment in a more typical situation.

[rhm]

PhilKing, on 2013-August-31, 18:38, said:

I find it interesting that when people try and construct hands in this type of situation, they focus solely on partner's bids, whereas if one takes a wider view, it is almost inconceivable that pard has a stiff heart ...

... the opposition bidding is just not consistent with a 6-4 fit.

Anyway, I would have bid 3♠ on the previous round, rightly or wrongly, since we know they have a big fit and we are never buying it in two.





(OK - obv it will turn out they do have a 6-4 fit, but that only applies against droolers).

Agreed.
Opponents probably have only a 5-3 fit in hearts but opener must have good support for the the red suits. You probably have only a 4-4 fit in spades and it also does not look like RHO has a singleton in spades.
So bidding on is unlikely to be right. I lead a spade honor.

Rainer Herrmann

[kenberg]

CSGibson, on 2013-September-04, 00:47, said:

What happened on the actual hand is largely irrelevant - partner had xxx of spades, and opener had AJTx, so 4S was very wrong, but I don't feel that has as much bearing on the problem, since partner didn't actually have a hand worth reopening on opposite a passed hand. Mostly I wanted to see if anyone else thought that this was worth bidding on, or what they thought of the earlier auction to check my own judgment in a more typical situation.

I understand, and very much applaud, concentrating on your choices rather than your partner's, but I think there is some reason to look at partner's as well. My thinking was that there appears to be a lot of points in this deck, making it, to my mind, inconceivable that partner could be re-opening with xxx in spades. Surely he has four, and I would bid 2♠ figuring that should be safe, and expecting to pass them in 3♥. But then reality steps in. Rho shows the diamonds I had been thinking partner might have, lho jumps to game, what's a guy to do?

I gather (Edit: but I gathered erroneously) Phil plans to ignore my posts, and he might be right, but anyway opinions were sought and you are getting mine.

[cloa513]

The pertinent question is what is the defences to this weak Non-trumps bid? What sort of hands can't he get into the bidding with? It seems strange to not be able with four card spades and unbalanced hand to able to get in. You should have bid 3♣ rather than 2S.
Also what are opponent's cooperative 1NT bidding structure?

[aguahombre]

kenberg, on 2013-September-04, 07:01, said:

I gather Phil plans to ignore my posts, and he might be right, but anyway opinions were sought and you are getting mine.

I didn't think he was referring to you even though his comment followed yours (by about 4 hours). I assumed it was about someone else, but I could be wrong.

[kenberg]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-04, 08:53, said:

I didn't think he was referring to you even though his comment followed yours (by about 4 hours). I assumed it was about someone else, but I could be wrong.

I shall assume this to be true. I am often wrong in my bridge thinking but I had not thought I had said anything brain dead dumb,

Anyway, I am a relaxed sort of guy. So I claim.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2013-September-04, 07:01, said:

I gather Phil plans to ignore my posts, and he might be right, but anyway opinions were sought and you are getting mine.

Ken, mentally note that PK and FH are amongst the better players in England, then go back and re-read the whole thread paying particular attention from post 12 (Phil's first post). I think if you do this you will have a pretty good idea before the end who Phil had in mind to ignore.

[PhilKing]

kenberg, on 2013-September-04, 10:47, said:

I shall assume this to be true. I am often wrong in my bridge thinking but I had not thought I had said anything brain dead dumb,

Anyway, I am a relaxed sort of guy. So I claim.

Ken, it's not you.