A relatively simple competitive question
#1
Posted 2011-December-06, 07:09
(1♦) - 1 ♥ - (1♠) - ?
What would you bid with:
♠ Q 10
♥ 4 3 2
♦ K 8 7 6 3
♣ A K 10
(Assume whatever methods you want, but please delineate your assumptions. Thanks!)
"If you're driving [the Honda S2000] with the top up, the storm outside had better have a name."
Simplify the complicated side; don't complify the simplicated side.
#2
Posted 2011-December-06, 08:11
#3
Posted 2011-December-06, 08:27
the_clown, on 2011-December-06, 08:11, said:
Would your later NT bid guarantee stoppers in both diamonds and spades? Suggest stoppers in both? Guarantee one and suggest the other?
"If you're driving [the Honda S2000] with the top up, the storm outside had better have a name."
Simplify the complicated side; don't complify the simplicated side.
#4
Posted 2011-December-06, 08:50
S2000magic, on 2011-December-06, 08:27, said:
I an not sure how to answer the question fully; but you did have a choice of cuebids -- therefore you bid the one you had something in. So I think that a NT bid would virtually guarantee a diamond stopper.
#6
Posted 2011-December-06, 08:55
S2000magic, on 2011-December-06, 07:09, said:
(1♦) - 1 ♥ - (1♠) - ?
What would you bid with:
♠ Q 10
♥ 4 3 2
♦ K 8 7 6 3
♣ A K 10
(Assume whatever methods you want, but please delineate your assumptions. Thanks!)
2d looks like a good start.
general cue tell me more, limit raise very often.
I assume we overcall 1h pretty sound when vul.
#7
Posted 2011-December-06, 09:16
S2000magic, on 2011-December-06, 08:27, said:
It should certainly guarantee a spade stopper since that is the suit to your right.
I am not sure if we can bid stoppers in spades or diamonds specifically after having supported partner's major. I would take spade and diamond bids after the raise as some kind of trials for 4♠. But maybe we play a kind of trial bids that more or less means the same as stopper showing.
If you start with a double instead of 2♦ then you could show stoppers in specific suits by bidding spades or diamond later. But of course you don't double with this hand. 2♦ is clear.
#8
Posted 2011-December-06, 09:22
S2000magic, on 2011-December-06, 08:27, said:
with Q10 of ♠, I would not be too worried that ops are taking the first 5 ♠ tricks, partner is likely to have something in ♠, especially if opener doesnt raise, or mby support double.
If you could tell me what p will do over 2♦, It will be easier for me to plan my further bidding.
#9
Posted 2011-December-06, 11:10
helene_t, on 2011-December-06, 09:16, said:
I trust that you meant 4♥, not 4♠.
"If you're driving [the Honda S2000] with the top up, the storm outside had better have a name."
Simplify the complicated side; don't complify the simplicated side.
#10
Posted 2011-December-06, 11:11
jmcw, on 2011-December-06, 08:55, said:
That's what I bid, but not without misgivings that I was underbidding.
"If you're driving [the Honda S2000] with the top up, the storm outside had better have a name."
Simplify the complicated side; don't complify the simplicated side.
#11
Posted 2011-December-06, 11:12
mike777, on 2011-December-06, 08:55, said:
I assumed the same thing, but we're a new partnership (only our second session together). On this occasion, it was sound.
"If you're driving [the Honda S2000] with the top up, the storm outside had better have a name."
Simplify the complicated side; don't complify the simplicated side.
#12
Posted 2011-December-06, 11:19
the_clown, on 2011-December-06, 09:22, said:
That's problematic here (and, pretty much, the crux of my reason for asking). Partner held:
♠ J 6 2
♥ A K 10 8 7 5
♦ 5
♣ Q 3 2
I'd guess he'd have bid 2♥, but 3♥ isn't inconceivable (he has better than a minimum overcall, and a sixth heart to boot).
"If you're driving [the Honda S2000] with the top up, the storm outside had better have a name."
Simplify the complicated side; don't complify the simplicated side.
#13
Posted 2011-December-06, 12:17
This is a minimum vul 1h overcall.
#14
Posted 2011-December-06, 12:33
Subtracting 2 points for ♠Q, 1 point for ♦K, and 1 point for terrible trumps gives me a 8 point hand.
Partner does not have a biddible spade suit(his overcall shows about 10+ hcp or good distribution and with both majors he has either a TO double or a Michaels bid.) Since partner probably has 3 or less, we have 5 or less and the oppenents have a spade fit, and our spades unlikely only good, except possibly on defense.
Partner is also relatively short in ♦ as opener and advancer are long
Assuming that partner will reraise to 3♥ preemptive, on any 6 card ♥suit not suitable for a game try or with a singleton ♠. I intend to defend against opponent ♠ contracts, even at two level, if possible, based on the law of total tricks. Of course I will accept a game try from partner.
#15
Posted 2011-December-06, 12:40
#16
Posted 2011-December-06, 13:12
As overcaller, I would do more than just 2♥. But you could still end in 3♥ if nobody does anything particularly aggressive. If we weren't vulnerable at IMPs, there would definitely be no blame for missing 4♥.
#17
Posted 2011-December-06, 21:55