[mike777]

jonottawa, on Mar 24 2010, 02:42 PM, said:

Here's another hand from the final Swiss in Reno.

IMPs, favorable

♠J7x ♥8xxx ♦Q9 ♣A6xx

1♣ - 1♦ - 1NT - P
2♣ - 2♦ - P - P
2♥ - P - 3♣ - ?

Please explain your reasoning.

good post ty...

as a nonexpert I bid 3d but a very slow 3d....break in tempo.

After thinking for a bit......easy 3d now.

my thinking../.non expert...



sst=3
whcp=`16-18=minus 1


13-3-1= nine tricks.
---------


ugg I see I was far off sigh...off by two tricks ...sigh

pard has 2clubs ...I estimated...zero clubs.

[Codo]

jdonn, on Mar 25 2010, 01:50 PM, said:

wclass___, on Mar 24 2010, 07:08 PM, said:

Part score swing?

that

Look at the list of players (and please feel free to remove me). They all bid 3♦ and they all bid it quickly. Why do you think that is? I believe the problem is you grossly underestimate the hand and suit shown by rebidding 2♦ opposite a silent partner.

Maybe- just maybe the quick answer of world class players can be worse then what Jon finds out after several minutes of thinking about such a hand?

Maybe, just maybe the pros have other criteria for a 2♦ rebid as Jons partner has?

FWIW, I am really surprised about all these clear statements for 3 ♦. The law is surely not at our side and the suits are not breaking.

[Fluffy]

jonottawa, on Mar 24 2010, 09:55 PM, said:

My analysis (fwiw):

Spoiler

LHO rates to be 4-4-0-5 as both partner and RHO have had opportunities to bid ♠ and declined. This would also explain why LHO pulled 1N and why he didn't reopen with a double.

If you accept that LHO is 4-4-0-5, RHO rates to be 3-3-5-2. He didn't raise 2C to 3C. His ♦ aren't that good, so he likely would have bid 3♣ with 3-3-4-3.

So would you rather defend a 7-card club fit or declare an 8 card Diamond fit breaking 5-0, both at the 3-level?

At any rate, I thought it was an interesting problem.

The hand was given to Josh, Justin, Justin's dad, Mark Lair, Marin Marinov and (not by me) Eric Rodwell. All bid 3♦ quickly.

Partner's hand:

Ax Qxx AJT7xx xx

(Opener was 4-4-0-5, 3DX went -300, win 8 vs the spade game our teammates bid.)

You are basing too much assumptions on who has the 4th spade and that.

If you were at the table you could reinforce your assumptions by the confidence of the bid of 1NT, and slow bids of 2♣ and 2♥, but as it is I think you really have no clue where the 4th spade is.

[mcphee]

Looks to me like I should raise D. I have some decent cards for partner and did not mention them while he took it upon himself to bid 2D where he might be facing a penalty double given the NT bid. If he bid because he thought I did not hear him bid 2D that is too bad. I believe raise is pretty good here, what more am I supposed to have than this?

As for who holds the S etc, who cares. Why am I going to strain my mini brain on some part score problem. I know this, if they take time to double 3D I will not be unhappy at all.

[gnasher]

I think this is a pass.

When partner bid 2♦, both opponents were limited, so he was already playing me for some values. I think his actual hand is a normal minimum for his action.

In high-card strength, I probably have about what he's expecting. Is what I have well placed? Not particularly - ♦Q will be worth a trick, but ♣A is probably opposite a small singleton. Having length in both of the suits bid on my left means that there's some risk of an overruff.

The upside of bidding is limited - for it to gain significantly, we need both partscores to make. Often when you compete on a partscore hand you have the extra chance that they'll compete further when they shouldn't, but that's not going to happen on this deal.

[jdonn]

Codo, on Mar 25 2010, 03:03 AM, said:

Maybe- just maybe the quick answer of world class players can be worse then what Jon finds out after several minutes of thinking about such a hand?

Very unlikely. Rodwell???

Quote

Maybe, just maybe the pros have other criteria for a 2♦ rebid as Jons partner has?

Possibly. So what am I supposed to say if his partnership has a different than normal meaning for 2♦? If that's true I agree it could be right to take a different than normal action on our hand.