BBO Discussion Forums: What is going on? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

What is going on?

#1 User is offline   Walddk 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,190
  • Joined: 2003-September-30
  • Location:London, England
  • Interests:Cricket

Posted 2007-November-20, 08:59

Scoring: IMP

Danish Premier League over the weekend. The following interesting auction was to be seen at one table:

4♣* -- pass - 6♥ - 6♠
pass - pass - 7♦ - pass
pass - ??

* Natural pre-empt

All four players are usually sane. What is going on, and what is your call now?

Roland
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice
0

#2 User is offline   pclayton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,151
  • Joined: 2003-June-11
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 2007-November-20, 09:10

Incredible.

Pard waltzes into the 6 level vulnerable with a J high suit?

Whats LHO doing? Is he 7-6?

I think whats more likely is that pard has a zillion diamonds and LHO has a void. LHO wanted to 'sac' in 7♥ but wanted to get the lead director in against 7♠ with a void. RHO wasn't in on the joke and converted with 1=3 in the reds.

Pass and write +1200 or +1300 on the scoresheet. 7♠ isn't making.
"Phil" on BBO
0

#3 User is offline   FrancesHinden 

  • Limit bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,482
  • Joined: 2004-November-02
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England
  • Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those

Posted 2007-November-20, 09:18

LHO is 0=7=6=0
Parnter is 9=0=1=3
RHO is 0=2=4=7

(you can fiddle around with the red suit holdings slightly)

7D could well be making
You haven't given any vulnerability, so I don't know what the odds are, but it looks right to save.

Phil's suggestion is also possible of course.
0

#4 User is offline   Walddk 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,190
  • Joined: 2003-September-30
  • Location:London, England
  • Interests:Cricket

Posted 2007-November-20, 09:22

FrancesHinden, on Nov 20 2007, 05:18 PM, said:

You haven't given any vulnerability

I have, look again. Both.
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice
0

#5 User is offline   keylime 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: FD TEAM
  • Posts: 2,735
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nashville, TN
  • Interests:Motorsports, cricket, disc golf, and of course - bridge. :-)

Posted 2007-November-20, 09:33

If I didn't know any better I'd swear the 6♥ bidder was thinking 4♣ was NAMYATS.
"Champions aren't made in gyms, champions are made from something they have deep inside them - a desire, a dream, a vision. They have to have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have to have the skill and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill. " - M. Ali
0

#6 User is offline   Blofeld 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 775
  • Joined: 2005-May-05
  • Location:Oxford
  • Interests:mathematics, science fiction, Tolkien, go, fencing, word games, board games, bad puns, juggling, Mornington Crescent, philosophy, Tom Lehrer, rock climbing, jootsing, drinking tea, plotting to take over the world, croquet . . . and most other things, really.

  Posted 2007-November-20, 09:41

Phil's suggestion has partner's 6♠ bid on a 5 card suit to the jack. Surely that can't be right - partner would bid 7♦ if anything with a 5-8 hand. Even if the 4♣ bidder is allowed to hold 4, partner is at most 6-7.

I think 7-6 for our LHO is more likely. I bid 7♠ because I expect it to cost at most 1100 and probably less, whereas I think 7♦ is probably making.
0

#7 User is offline   brianshark 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 895
  • Joined: 2006-May-13
  • Location:Dublin
  • Interests:Artificial Intelligence, Computer Games, Satire, Football, Rugby... and Bridge I suppose.

Posted 2007-November-20, 10:09

If 4♣ was namyats then the opps are screwed. They go down in everything. If 7♦ was lead direct then 7♥ is a sacrafice and they will likely go down. If 6♥ then 7♦ are genuine bids, then where did LHO find his 13th trick from after pard comes in 6♠? The only way I can justify LHO's 7♦ id is if it's a sacrafice because he thinks 6♠ will make. Except we know pard's 6♠ is a sac because we have the ♠AKQ.

I don't know what's going on but as I have a ♥ stop and a ♣ stop (albeit flimsy ones), I'm going to double, and keep doubling whatever they bid. Worst case scenario, they have a solid diamond fit, but even then my double might scare LHO into pulling back to his ♥ fit where we have a sure trick.
The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.
0

#8 User is offline   han 

  • Under bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,797
  • Joined: 2004-July-25
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Posted 2007-November-20, 10:16

Anything but Frances's construction is way to deep for me. I am afraid that 7D will make so I'm going to bid 7S.
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.

- hrothgar
0

#9 User is offline   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,008
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2007-November-20, 10:38

Expecting RHO to panic and correct 7♦ to 7♥ is silly: we are playing competent opps and RHO just finished passing 7♦!

I agree with Frances' constructions.. maybe not card for card but close enough and maybe bang-on.

I just don't see Phil's layout as plausible: give me another diamond, or preferably a couple more, and I could accept it against a very imaginative LHO.... but when I hold a doubleton, I have to account for 11 diamonds in two hands... while leaving partner with enough topless spades that he bid 6♠: Jxxxxx void AKQxxxx still leaves opener with 4 diamonds, which seems against the odds.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
0

#10 User is offline   Fluffy 

  • World International Master without a clue
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,404
  • Joined: 2003-November-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:madrid

Posted 2007-November-20, 11:21

This hand screams a raise.

What trick can we possibly make? none for us, only partner could have one, and he didn't double.
BridgeGod: my personal website with interactive problems and articles
0

#11 User is offline   pclayton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,151
  • Joined: 2003-June-11
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 2007-November-20, 11:31

Blofeld, on Nov 20 2007, 07:41 AM, said:

Phil's suggestion has partner's 6♠ bid on a 5 card suit to the jack. Surely that can't be right - partner would bid 7♦ if anything with a 5-8 hand. Even if the 4♣ bidder is allowed to hold 4, partner is at most 6-7.

I think 7-6 for our LHO is more likely. I bid 7♠ because I expect it to cost at most 1100 and probably less, whereas I think 7♦ is probably making.

Then make the table:

Us: 4=4=2=3
LHO: 3=8=0=2
Pard: 6=0=7=0
RHO 0=1=4=8

This doesn't seem any less plausible than pard having a 9 bagger but we are speaking of a once-in-a-lifetime hand.
"Phil" on BBO
0

#12 User is offline   jdonn 

  • - - T98765432 AQT8
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,085
  • Joined: 2005-June-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 2007-November-20, 11:36

People are putting way too much thought into this (well ok, it may be interesting academically.) I have AKQx of a suit my partner just bid on his own on the 6 level! I don't care what anyone has, 7♠.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
0

#13 User is offline   Apollo81 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,162
  • Joined: 2006-July-10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 2007-November-20, 11:51

If we're not going to raise with this hand, what WILL we raise with?
0

#14 User is offline   han 

  • Under bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,797
  • Joined: 2004-July-25
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Posted 2007-November-20, 11:53

pclayton, on Nov 20 2007, 12:31 PM, said:

Blofeld, on Nov 20 2007, 07:41 AM, said:

Phil's suggestion has partner's 6♠ bid on a 5 card suit to the jack. Surely that can't be right - partner would bid 7♦ if anything with a 5-8 hand. Even if the 4♣ bidder is allowed to hold 4, partner is at most 6-7.

I think 7-6 for our LHO is more likely. I bid 7♠ because I expect it to cost at most 1100 and probably less, whereas I think 7♦ is probably making.

Then make the table:

Us: 4=4=2=3
LHO: 3=8=0=2
Pard: 6=0=7=0
RHO 0=1=4=8

This doesn't seem any less plausible than pard having a 9 bagger but we are speaking of a once-in-a-lifetime hand.

Yes it does, it means partner has bid his shorter and weaker suit and it means LHO has bid a void instead of a suit.
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.

- hrothgar
0

#15 User is offline   pclayton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,151
  • Joined: 2003-June-11
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 2007-November-20, 12:06

Hannie, on Nov 20 2007, 09:53 AM, said:

pclayton, on Nov 20 2007, 12:31 PM, said:

Blofeld, on Nov 20 2007, 07:41 AM, said:

Phil's suggestion has partner's 6♠ bid on a 5 card suit to the jack. Surely that can't be right - partner would bid 7♦ if anything with a 5-8 hand. Even if the 4♣ bidder is allowed to hold 4, partner is at most 6-7.

I think 7-6 for our LHO is more likely. I bid 7♠ because I expect it to cost at most 1100 and probably less, whereas I think 7♦ is probably making.

Then make the table:

Us: 4=4=2=3
LHO: 3=8=0=2
Pard: 6=0=7=0
RHO 0=1=4=8

This doesn't seem any less plausible than pard having a 9 bagger but we are speaking of a once-in-a-lifetime hand.

Yes it does, it means partner has bid his shorter and weaker suit and it means LHO has bid a void instead of a suit.

Right - at the 6 level instead of the 7 level where we may have the same loser count in spades as diamonds.
"Phil" on BBO
0

#16 User is offline   gwnn 

  • Csaba the Hutt
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,027
  • Joined: 2006-June-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:bye

Posted 2007-November-20, 12:41

wtf, pd bid 6♠, i'm not sure 7♦ doesn't make, i'm not sure 7♠ doesn't make, so i'm not going to risk a very very humiliating 4 digit swing here. 7♠, half hoping it gets doubled (by whom??)
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
      George Carlin
0

#17 User is offline   whereagles 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,900
  • Joined: 2004-May-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal
  • Interests:Everything!

Posted 2007-November-20, 13:21

If pard is solid, he bid 6♠ to make, so I raise to 7.

If pard is a joker, I'll just dbl since I don't think they're making this.
0

#18 User is offline   han 

  • Under bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,797
  • Joined: 2004-July-25
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Posted 2007-November-20, 13:24

Look at our hand! Partner did not bid 6S expecting it to make.
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.

- hrothgar
0

#19 User is offline   whereagles 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,900
  • Joined: 2004-May-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal
  • Interests:Everything!

Posted 2007-November-20, 13:32

well, if he has like 8 spades, he's entitled to think he might make it, no?
0

#20 User is offline   pclayton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,151
  • Joined: 2003-June-11
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 2007-November-20, 13:41

Hannie, on Nov 20 2007, 11:24 AM, said:

Look at our hand! Partner did not bid 6S expecting it to make.

No but that doesnt preclude him from bidding 6♠ with long lousy spades and great diamonds.
"Phil" on BBO
0
  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users