| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1943.1 | would have bid 4H | GAAS::BRAUCHER | And nothing else matters | Thu Mar 06 1997 15:44 | 11 |
|
I would not pass 3S, which is not forcing, it seems. I would have
bid 4 hearts. I would also bid 4H if RHO had passed. I accept the
invitation with this hand, because I would open with less in a big club
system, I have 3 1/2 quick tricks and a fifth heart.
Having passed, it seems I should sit, for consistency. Partner's
double is for penalties, and it's hard to see how I could have more
defense than this.
bb
|
| 1943.2 | cluck cluck? | STAR::STILES | When in doubt, hack. | Thu Mar 06 1997 16:19 | 11 |
| I would have bid 4H right away, regardless of the 3S bid.
You have a 6 loser hand, a fifth heart, and near max for
the system you are using. Go for a game across from limit raise?
Sure.
I guess that given the fact you're now looking at 3SX, I sit for
the double -- I doubt it will be as reasonable as being in 4H though
and if there are double fits on both sides it may make (ugh).
- Mark
|
| 1943.3 | 4H | CADSYS::GROSS | The bug stops here | Fri Mar 07 1997 09:26 | 10 |
| I have had many bad results defending when our side could/should
have bid game. To compensate for 4H you have to beat 3S by 3 tricks.
That means you have to take 7 tricks; i.e. your side makes 1S.
I would have bid 4H over 3S and I would bid 4H over 3SX (and be
thankful for being given the 2nd chance). Unless you are a deadly
defender, I find it almost always pays to bid your game first before
doubling the opps for penalties. Especially at matchpoints where
the field will protect you if you bid the game.
Dave
|
| 1943.4 | 4H | MPGS::COHEN | Bob Cohen | Sun Mar 09 1997 07:15 | 11 |
| Bid 4H on both the first and second try.
We are likley to have between 8-9 trumps and so are the opponents. Say a total
of 17 trumps. All evaluation factors (with exception) of SJ are positive.
Therefore would expect 17-18 tricks.
If we make 4H they will go down one or two in 3S.
If we are down one in 4H they will make or down one in 3S.
A pass is correct only if both contracts are down one (1 case) and incorrect in
the other 3 cases.
|
| 1943.5 | The hands | SUBSYS::SENGUPTA | Shekhar Sengupta DTN 237-6785 | Tue Mar 11 1997 09:30 | 18 |
| All of you were right - some more than others. Because partner held:
S x
H JTxx
D Kxxx
C KJxx
Your hand was:
S Jxx * (I made an error on the original hand)
H AKxxx
D AQxx
C x
Perhaps the double of 3S was ill advised? With 9 spades between them
the opponents went on to make 4. Our side would have made 5 as I recall.
Shekhar
|
| 1943.6 | Where did that double come from? | CADSYS::GROSS | The bug stops here | Wed Mar 12 1997 09:17 | 12 |
| What an awful double! Partner has minimum high-card points for a limit
raise. The hand is aceless. The quick-trick count is 1; add that to
opener's expected value of 2 1/2 quick tricks and you get 3 1/2
tricks (maybe) for the defense. Unless you have some sort of agreement
that the short hand doubles in auctions like this, I just don't see it.
I'd say the bidding has improved partner's hand for play in hearts.
There is unlikely to be wasted strength opposite the spade singleton
and the values in the other side suits are prime (kings). He should
bid 4H, not double. Worry what to do after the opps bid 4S later.
Dave
|
| 1943.7 | Mea culpa | SUBSYS::SENGUPTA | Shekhar Sengupta DTN 237-6785 | Wed Mar 12 1997 12:10 | 13 |
|
re: .6
Weeelll ... the awful doubler was me, since I reversed the hands. Now
that you point it out, the double does look a little thin. Perhaps
the only rationale I can give is that in our system, we open 1H with
4-4 in the majors. So I figured that partner might have his HCP
mostly outside of hearts since he took no action on my 2S bid.
I now see, that I should just let partner be the judge instead of
assuming what tricks he can or cannot take.
Shekhar
|