is this a trap?
#1
Posted 2014-August-27, 16:31
A6
K864
KQT5
952
against reasonable oops at a late-night MP tournament, you see the bidding go like this:
1D-p-1H-2C
x-2S-3D-p
p-3S-??
3D was not really the value bid, but what do you do now? Partner is a sound opener.
edit: now there are 13 cards
George Carlin
#3
Posted 2014-August-27, 17:56
PhantomSac, on 2014-August-27, 16:46, said:
They are vulnerable at MPs in 3♠, what else do you need to double?
#4
Posted 2014-August-27, 18:08
cherdano, on 2014-August-27, 17:56, said:
A 13th card.
#6
Posted 2014-August-27, 19:45
George Carlin
#7
Posted 2014-August-28, 01:55
#8
Posted 2014-August-28, 01:59
cherdano, on 2014-August-27, 17:56, said:
I dunno if I had a fifth diamond maybe I would not want to double, it hurts our defensive prospects and helps our offensive prospects. In general I want to have 13 cards before I decide what to do
#9
Posted 2014-August-28, 03:09
gwnn, on 2014-August-27, 16:31, said:
- You have told partner your distribution in the red suits. He will expect you to be about 3-2 in the blacks.
- You have about an ace more than what my partner would expect you to hold (unless you are playing some form of good/bad 2NT).
- We have at least invitational values, you have a balanced hand, the opponents bid at the three level and are not sure of a fit.
- We are at favorable @ MPs.
I don't care whether the opponents are "reasonable". I double as a strong suggestion to penalize them.
I trust that my partner realizes that we have a double fit in the red suits. That means that he shouldn't sit for the double if he has a minimum opening with a lot of diamonds.
Is it possible that they make 3♠X when RHO got clever with an eight card spade suit and partner passed with a minimum 2353? I guess it is possible. If so, congratulate he opponents. But I don't think it is a very likely scenario.
Rik
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
#11
Posted 2014-August-28, 05:29
K97
J85
AJ97
K84
and passed my x. Unfortunately declarer had
QJT8532
AT76
-
T5 (giving dummy x Qx xxxxx AQJxx - sorry, I'm posting from my phone)
and easily wrapped up 730. My partner thought my x was insane and I
George Carlin
#12
Posted 2014-August-28, 07:37
#13
Posted 2014-August-28, 08:13
Lovera, on 2014-August-28, 07:37, said:
I'm not convinced. Not bidding on the first round with this 7-4 hand is somewhat risky; partner with 2 kings and out won't enter the auction, but you're cold for 4S.
ahydra
#14
Posted 2014-August-28, 08:15
#15
Posted 2014-August-28, 08:18
helene_t, on 2014-August-28, 08:15, said:
You are forgetting Csaba's Corrollary - when Gwnn's Law fails it will be against gwnn.
#16
Posted 2014-August-28, 09:52
ahydra, on 2014-August-28, 08:13, said:
ahydra
Infact i intended another thing: what i said is referred to bidding to reach at the end and when part is passed not in this case, sorry.
#17
Posted 2014-August-28, 11:24
Trinidad, on 2014-August-28, 03:09, said:
- You have about an ace more than what my partner would expect you to hold (unless you are playing some form of good/bad 2NT).
- We have at least invitational values, you have a balanced hand, the opponents bid at the three level and are not sure of a fit.
- We are at favorable @ MPs.
I don't care whether the opponents are "reasonable". I double as a strong suggestion to penalize them.
I trust that my partner realizes that we have a double fit in the red suits. That means that he shouldn't sit for the double if he has a minimum opening with a lot of diamonds.
Is it possible that they make 3♠X when RHO got clever with an eight card spade suit and partner passed with a minimum 2353? I guess it is possible. If so, congratulate he opponents. But I don't think it is a very likely scenario.
Rik
Of course, I really meant to write:
"- You have told partner your distribution in the red suits. He will expect you to be about 3-2 in the blacks. He can decide for himself.
- Having an ace more than what my partner would expect is NOT a good reason to double.
- We may have at least invitational values, but remember: Points, Schmoints! And you may have a balanced hand, but the opponents won't and obviously have a fit.
- We are at favorable @ MPs. But the opponents also saw the vulnerability and they know it is MPs. How stupid do you think they are? Of course, they will make 3♠!
Is it possible that they go down in 3♠X when RHO got silly with a six card spade suit and partner passed with a minimum 4342? I guess it is possible. If so, humiliate the opponents. But I don't think it is a very likely scenario."
But somehow my keyboard was malfunctioning...
Rik
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
#18
Posted 2014-August-28, 11:42
gwnn, on 2014-August-27, 16:31, said:
against reasonable oops at a late-night MP tournament, you see the bidding go like this:
1♦-(_P)-1♥-(2♣)
_X-(2♠)-3♦-(_P)
_P-(3♠)-??
3♦ was not really the value bid, but what do you do now? Partner is a sound opener.
gwnn, on 2014-August-28, 05:29, said:
and passed my x. Unfortunately declarer had ♠ Q J T 8 5 3 2 ♥ A T 7 6 ♦ - ♣ T 5
(giving dummy ♠ x ♥ Q x ♦ x x x x x ♣ A Q J x x - sorry, I'm posting from my phone)
and easily wrapped up 730. My partner thought my x was insane and I
#20
Posted 2014-August-28, 18:28
I don't like being at work today.