[Bbradley62]

Scoring: XIMP

---

[MarkDean]

I think it is close. I voted double, but pass is ok with me too. I would not bid 2♣.

[pooltuna]

MarkDean, on Jun 26 2010, 08:48 PM, said:

I think it is close. I voted double, but pass is ok with me too. I would not bid 2♣.

you are in a part score war you need to strike a blow ASAP and that is right now with X.

[gwnn]

I am not OK with pass or 2C at all.

[wank]

you are permitted to pass on occasion when you've got a crappy hand, you're vul against not and partner's passed.

do you want to play at the 2 level with 7 trumps at unfavourable? no, i didn't think so.

[aguahombre]

To paraphrase a Poker saying: there are 3 choices, and they are all wrong.

Spoiler

I pass

[Phil]

Double.

[the hog]

I guess it was (1D) P (P)
I would certinly bid 1NT. For me that is the most descriptive bid and the most likely contract.

[aguahombre]

The_Hog, on Jun 27 2010, 12:15 AM, said:

I guess it was (1D) P (P)
I would certinly bid 1NT. For me that is the most descriptive bid and the most likely contract.

? OP states p (1D) to you. This is not a balancing situation, unless OP changes it.

[the hog]

aguahombre, on Jun 27 2010, 01:29 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Jun 27 2010, 12:15 AM, said:

I guess it was (1D) P (P)
I would certinly bid 1NT. For me that is the most descriptive bid and the most likely contract.

? OP states p (1D) to you. This is not a balancing situation, unless OP changes it.

IF that is the case, then X.

[mcphee]

I have support for other suits, I am short in D, I would have opened the bidding, therefore I make a t/o double because that is what I have. The fact that partner happens to have passed does not alter the hand I hold nor mean we can not make a major suit game (although less likely).

[gwnn]

wank, on Jun 27 2010, 02:45 AM, said:

you are permitted to pass on occasion when you've got a crappy hand, you're vul against not and partner's passed.

do you want to play at the 2 level with 7 trumps at unfavourable? no, i didn't think so.

No, but I'd like to play at the 2 level with 8 trumps at unfavourable. There are good cases and bad cases for any decision in bridge.

Besides, my partner is awesome, he can make stuff in 4-3. I am always a little lost but my partners aren't.

[Codo]

I still trust Sabine, it works at the table...

[mike777]

Bbradley62, on Jun 26 2010, 08:33 PM, said:

Dealer: North Vul: N/S Scoring: XIMP

♠ J53 ♥ KQ4 ♦ J6 ♣ AQ984

really tough hand despite comments so far

I can understand:

pass or x or 2c.


I guess I would x...but ...you can talk me out of it.


=============


I just hope this hand does n ot=winning bridge....just tough bridge...

[whereagles]

Always 2♣, because it's one of the most bothersome overcalls in bridge.

I agree it's technically not correct, but it's so often the winning bid.

[Hanoi5]

I don't think 2♣ is too bad, just that double is much better.

[gszeszycki]

Dealer: North
Vul: N/S
Scoring: XIMP
♠ J53
♥ KQ4
♦ J6
♣ AQ984
pass 1d and you are up

pass

IMPS is a risk/reward game much more so than mp. Getting slaughtered on a hand at mp is bad but entering this auction is hoping to not get slaughtered at BEST. Opposite a passed hand there is only the tiniest sliver of hope we have a game so the best we can hope for is we can come close to making some partial and splits are not bad enough to get us hammered r/w. Even is we can make something does not mean opps cannot make more and use the x in helping them play the hand.

If the bidding proceeds 1d p 1n p p or 1d p 2d p p then an x makes more sense because at least we know p has some values and odds of a fit have increased.
this situation is completely dissimilar to what action I would take if p were not a passed hand at least then game is still feasible here it borders on a pipe dream.

If made an offer I can't refuse to choose between 2c and X I would X
rating the bids i would give pass = 10 x = 5 2c = 2 all the while knowing pass is
an unpopular choice in a bidders "have more fun" game. At this vulnerability at IMPS i would generally prefer to be much close to classic 4441 shape for a direct tox and not so much "crud" ie jxx jx

[whereagles]

Hanoi5, on Jun 28 2010, 12:47 PM, said:

I don't think 2♣ is too bad, just that double is much better.

Double is good if it's our hand. But if the hand is theirs, 2♣ is a lot more troublesome.

[hanp]

Troublesome for whom?

[whereagles]

To the opening side.

(1m) 2om (??)

is a situation similar to

2m (??)

where 2m = weak 2. Likelhood of playing in the 4-3 fit is relatively high. I've seen it happening many times, which is why I always try and keep both 2♣ and 2♦ as nat weak.