I disagree with my friends here. Imps, what now ?
Page 1 of 1
Problems after first negative double
#3
Posted 2011-March-23, 22:32
Double.
"I have a max for previous neg-X at 2-level."
Do you see what to play, partner? Have you 2+DT? S-stop?
Offense, not much so 3D?
"I have a max for previous neg-X at 2-level."
Do you see what to play, partner? Have you 2+DT? S-stop?
Offense, not much so 3D?
#4
Posted 2011-March-23, 23:21
4D. 3D is the world's biggest underbid.
"The King of Hearts a broadsword bears, the Queen of Hearts a rose." W. H. Auden.
#5
Posted 2011-March-24, 01:13
Quote
Double.
Quote
4D. 3D is the world's biggest underbid.
This hand caused some disagreement between me and my friends. I want to double, they want to bid 4♦.
I say that partner will never pass the double with something like 3-5-4-1, they say he often will thus I can't double.
#6
Posted 2011-March-24, 03:54
I think double would suggest a 3244 11-count. Will partner pass that with four diamonds? Perhaps not that often, but yes he might do. The fact that he doesn't have any of ♦KQ10 will encourage him to defend.
I don't see what's wrong with 3♦ here. If I pass, partner will play me for a 3244 7-count. If I bid 3♦, I show my fifth diamond. I have a few more points as well, but I'm aceless, and my club honours are probably opposite a singleton or doubleton.
Also, I think partner is limited by his 2♦ bid. My double implied both minors, so partner's minor-suit bids should be limit bids. If he'd bid 3♦ that would have been invitational, in the same way as
1♦ 1♥ dbl pass
3♠
is invitational.
I don't see what's wrong with 3♦ here. If I pass, partner will play me for a 3244 7-count. If I bid 3♦, I show my fifth diamond. I have a few more points as well, but I'm aceless, and my club honours are probably opposite a singleton or doubleton.
Also, I think partner is limited by his 2♦ bid. My double implied both minors, so partner's minor-suit bids should be limit bids. If he'd bid 3♦ that would have been invitational, in the same way as
1♦ 1♥ dbl pass
3♠
is invitational.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
#7
Posted 2011-March-24, 04:18
Quote
I don't see what's wrong with 3♦ here
We thought the hand is too strong for that but 3♦ looks perfectly reasonable to me now, still I would prefer dbl as 3♦ could be purely competitive with 5 diamonds.
#8
Posted 2011-March-24, 06:55
I would have bid 3!s like a shot. I have a pretty huge hand to play in diamonds. Bit worried that partner has too many spades but such is life. Happy to play 5D vs: Kx Kxxxx Axxx Ax. Guess maybe it needs a bit mroe than my instinct suggested, but really cannot imagine bidding 3d.
The physics is theoretical, but the fun is real. - Sheldon Cooper
#9
Posted 2011-March-24, 06:58
Also, if partner had: K9xx Axxxx AJx x would anyone fancy a 2d bid? Perhaps everyone is for 1N here. Guess it looks quite normal. Just a bit surprising that lho hasnt found a raise. RHO has not bid that strongly. If partner has no spade values he could easily have x KQxxx Axxx Axx or similar.
The physics is theoretical, but the fun is real. - Sheldon Cooper
#10
Posted 2011-March-24, 07:08
Partner could easily have a dream hand with a super double fit, opps could easily have a 10 card fit. However, it's not all that likely.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin
George Carlin
#11
Posted 2011-March-24, 07:37
phil_20686, on 2011-March-24, 06:58, said:
Also, if partner had: K9xx Axxxx AJx x would anyone fancy a 2d bid?
That's a nice nine of spades.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
Page 1 of 1