Double, 2♣, other?
Meckstroth gets lucky
#1
Posted 2015-December-05, 21:13
Double, 2♣, other?
-- Bertrand Russell
#3
Posted 2015-December-06, 02:39
i suppose the only bid i wouldn't criticise too much is 1nt - considering it's BAM you don't want to end up in a 43 major fit or perhaps clubs if partner has something in diamonds. you'll still get to a 53 major fit via a transfer. that's obviously a gamble (and probably not a good one) but a gamble with a clear upside.
#4
Posted 2015-December-06, 05:01
#5
Posted 2015-December-06, 05:11
cherdano, on 2015-December-06, 05:01, said:
strange indeed. no doubt someone is studying videos and play records so we can learn how to copy the great man's technique.
#6
Posted 2015-December-06, 06:38
wank, on 2015-December-06, 02:39, said:
i suppose the only bid i wouldn't criticise too much is 1nt - considering it's BAM you don't want to end up in a 43 major fit or perhaps clubs if partner has something in diamonds. you'll still get to a 53 major fit via a transfer. that's obviously a gamble (and probably not a good one) but a gamble with a clear upside.
Another problem with double is that it will be hard to show our extra values after partner bids 1M.
In fact, what is the upside of double? Even opposite Qxxx xxx xxxx Ax or Axx Jxxx xxx xxx INT is a good place to play.
I think I've talked myself into a 1NT overcall.
This post has been edited by gnasher: 2015-December-06, 06:38
#7
Posted 2015-December-06, 07:03
#8
Posted 2015-December-06, 07:47
WWMD?
-- Bertrand Russell
#9
Posted 2015-December-06, 07:50
cherdano, on 2015-December-06, 05:01, said:
I guess, this being the internets, I should clarify that I was sarcastically pointing out that the action chosen by a good player might work out more often than the action chosen by a lesser player.
#10
Posted 2015-December-06, 07:52
#11
Posted 2015-December-06, 09:38
mgoetze, on 2015-December-06, 07:47, said:
I think it's usually wrong to bid 2♣ with 3=3=2=5. But here it seems particularly awful. It is likely to be our hand, it is BAM, and clubs is quite unlikely to be our highest-scoring strain.
#12
Posted 2015-December-06, 17:25
mgoetze, on 2015-December-05, 21:13, said:
- Double. T/O. Fairly descriptive but a bit heavy and lacking in the majors.
- 2♣ = NAT. but this is a poor suit.
- 1N = NAT? but no ♦ stop. Double doesn't preclude a notrump contract If partner has a ♦ stop.
- Pass = NAT. but might be hard to catch up later.
#13
Posted 2015-December-06, 18:06
mgoetze, on 2015-December-06, 07:47, said:
WWMD?
Now I would pass, interested to see what Meck did
#14
Posted 2015-December-06, 19:10
#15
Posted 2015-December-06, 20:54
mgoetze, on 2015-December-06, 07:47, said:
I guess I just love overcalling 2♣ over 1♦ too much
and always talk myself into thinking it's an option.
Alright, the auction continues
WWMD?
- 4♥ = NAT. You might have bid this a round earlier. Partner pre-empted on a knave-high suit.
- Double = PEN. BAM is super-MPs. And partner would probaly have made 3♥.
- Pass = NAT. Discretion might be the better part of valour.
#16
Posted 2015-December-07, 05:18
Meckstroth would have a huge amount more information than that about what hand types are consistent with a 3H bid.
#17
Posted 2015-December-07, 05:26
As you can see, declarer had 11 tricks available at one point but chose to take only 9. Lucky?
-- Bertrand Russell
#18
Posted 2015-December-07, 06:42
#19
Posted 2015-December-09, 07:32
gnasher, on 2015-December-07, 06:42, said:
Perhaps some luck in pushing the opps into a makeable game and having them make a mistake during the play to go down though.
#20
Posted 2015-December-15, 04:02
Reisinger semifinals, you are playing RM Precision and it goes
Double, 2♣, other ?