Help
IMPs, All Red, Third Seat
♠J87xxx ♥x ♦AQ9x ♣7x
1NT - (Dbl) - 3♠ - (4♥)
P - (P) - ?
1NT was 12-14, and 3♠ was preemptive.
Agree with 3♠? Now what?
Page 1 of 1
Now What?
#1
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,214
- Joined: 2007-December-16
- Location:Pasadena, CA
Posted 2008-June-25, 19:09
#2
- Deipnosophist
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,386
- Joined: 2005-March-22
Posted 2008-June-25, 19:15
Now I await partner's lead. Don't know if I would have braved 3♠, but that was the bed I made. I don't understand anything else but the green card now.
"Half the people you know are below average." - Steven Wright
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,162
- Joined: 2006-July-10
- Gender:Male
- Location:Maryland
Posted 2008-June-25, 19:18
also dont understand anything but pass, we knew they were going to bid hearts or pass 3♠, we've made them guess so now we see if it was right or not
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,502
- Joined: 2007-December-22
Posted 2008-June-25, 19:28
Pass WTP.
Partner was allowed to bid 4♠ with 4 cards, I am not going to double 4♥, so what is left?
Agree with 3♠.
Partner was allowed to bid 4♠ with 4 cards, I am not going to double 4♥, so what is left?
Agree with 3♠.
That's impossible. No one can give more than one hundred percent. By definition that is the most anyone can give.
#5
- Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,586
- Joined: 2005-September-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
- Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor
Posted 2008-June-25, 20:30
655321, on Jun 25 2008, 08:28 PM, said:
I am not going to double 4♥, so what is left?
Surely you are tempted, though? I'd hit this hard, myself.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
-P.J. Painter.
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,962
- Joined: 2007-September-14
- Location:Australia
- Interests:The Universe, Traveling, Squash, and Scandinavia.
Posted 2008-June-25, 20:48
655321, on Jun 26 2008, 11:28 AM, said:
Pass WTP.
Partner was allowed to bid 4♠ with 4 cards, I am not going to double 4♥, so what is left?
Agree with 3♠.
Partner was allowed to bid 4♠ with 4 cards, I am not going to double 4♥, so what is left?
Agree with 3♠.
Agree. We've bid our hand
- Andy -
We are all connected to each other biologically, to the Earth chemically, and to the rest of the universe atomically.
We're in the universe, and the universe is in us.
We are all connected to each other biologically, to the Earth chemically, and to the rest of the universe atomically.
We're in the universe, and the universe is in us.
#7 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2008-June-25, 21:07
kenrexford, on Jun 25 2008, 09:30 PM, said:
655321, on Jun 25 2008, 08:28 PM, said:
I am not going to double 4♥, so what is left?
Surely you are tempted, though? I'd hit this hard, myself.
Why would one be tempted, because we have lots of points?
#8
- - - T98765432 AQT8
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,085
- Joined: 2005-June-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, NV
Posted 2008-June-25, 21:20
I would double, call me a sucker. I just think they are down often enough.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
#9
- Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,586
- Joined: 2005-September-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
- Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor
Posted 2008-June-25, 21:25
Jlall, on Jun 25 2008, 10:07 PM, said:
kenrexford, on Jun 25 2008, 09:30 PM, said:
655321, on Jun 25 2008, 08:28 PM, said:
I am not going to double 4♥, so what is left?
Surely you are tempted, though? I'd hit this hard, myself.
Why would one be tempted, because we have lots of points?
Yes. That's exactly what I did. I counted up my HCP's and added them to partner's HCP and decided, "Gee, they cannot have 26 HCP!"
Or, I have a well-placed AQ, and I pushed them into a decision. I think I have just enough defense that we might get them for a couple of tricks. Sure, they might make, but overtricks seems unlikely. And this is IMP scoring, so I'm not top-or-bottom gambling. I like to punish close decisions when they guess wrong, and I'm willing to toss them a cherry when they guessed right.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
-P.J. Painter.
#10 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2008-June-25, 21:34
kenrexford, on Jun 25 2008, 10:25 PM, said:
Jlall, on Jun 25 2008, 10:07 PM, said:
kenrexford, on Jun 25 2008, 09:30 PM, said:
655321, on Jun 25 2008, 08:28 PM, said:
I am not going to double 4♥, so what is left?
Surely you are tempted, though? I'd hit this hard, myself.
Why would one be tempted, because we have lots of points?
Yes. That's exactly what I did. I counted up my HCP's and added them to partner's HCP and decided, "Gee, they cannot have 26 HCP!"
Or, I have a well-placed AQ, and I pushed them into a decision. I think I have just enough defense that we might get them for a couple of tricks. Sure, they might make, but overtricks seems unlikely. And this is IMP scoring, so I'm not top-or-bottom gambling. I like to punish close decisions when they guess wrong, and I'm willing to toss them a cherry when they guessed right.
Ok, I guess we evaluate our defensive potential much differently then. I think an overtrick is way more likely than down 2. Are we expecting partner to magically find the diamond lead? If he leads a club or a spade it's probably bad. Declarer might be able to pitch diamonds on spades if he is some (not unlikely) 1525 or so, or declarer might just already be short in diamonds. I mean really what do you think LHO has? It seems pretty likely to me he has a shapely hand given that he doesn't have many HCP. Maybe his second suit is diamonds, in which case our honors are not well placed. Maybe he just has 7 hearts or something.
I think a good rule is when the opponents bid a lot with not many HCP they have some shape. When they have shape you want trump tricks and aces to double them. We have 1 trump and 1 ace and partner elected not to double them so I don't see any reason to think we can hold them to 4, let alone beat them. If parnter has 4 tricks himself including some trump tricks maybe he would have Xed them himself.
Sorry jdonn but this really seems like a beginner X to me.
#11
- Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,586
- Joined: 2005-September-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
- Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor
Posted 2008-June-25, 21:52
Well, I have to admit that my initial thought on this hand was that it would probably be better to show diamonds than spades, if there was any real way to do this.
That said, the reasoning offered seems misplaced.
You ask why partner did not double. He probably did not double because we made a preemptive call. A preemptive call with a potential two tricks on the side is unexpected. By your suggestion, he needs four assured tricks to double. I don't think he needs four assured tricks to set this.
You mention that opponents who bid without a lot of HCP do so because of shape. True. Or, they bid too much because they are forced to make a guess. I forced a guess. I think they guessed wrong. If I am wrong, which seems very possible, then such is the game.
My thought on this is that I have the unexpected -- cruddy spades and outside values. I think there is a greater chance here that the opponents have a duplication of values, like a stiff spade opposite some stranded honor(s). I would also think that partner will expect some surprise like this.
That said, the reasoning offered seems misplaced.
You ask why partner did not double. He probably did not double because we made a preemptive call. A preemptive call with a potential two tricks on the side is unexpected. By your suggestion, he needs four assured tricks to double. I don't think he needs four assured tricks to set this.
You mention that opponents who bid without a lot of HCP do so because of shape. True. Or, they bid too much because they are forced to make a guess. I forced a guess. I think they guessed wrong. If I am wrong, which seems very possible, then such is the game.
My thought on this is that I have the unexpected -- cruddy spades and outside values. I think there is a greater chance here that the opponents have a duplication of values, like a stiff spade opposite some stranded honor(s). I would also think that partner will expect some surprise like this.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
-P.J. Painter.
#12
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,151
- Joined: 2003-June-11
- Location:Southern California
Posted 2008-June-25, 22:40
I think this is such an automatic pass. OK, we have a couple of goodies outside out spades, BFD. Like Justin says, why would partner EVER find a diamond lead on this auction, with or without the x?
"Phil" on BBO
#13
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,214
- Joined: 2007-December-16
- Location:Pasadena, CA
Posted 2008-June-26, 01:30
This was a problem in our newspaper that I thought was interesting. My reaction was pretty much "pass wtp" like most here, but several points in the paper made me think double was at least worth consideration:
1) LHO had to make a guess on not very much information; his partner could have a pretty wide range of hands. The penalty could be pretty substantial if his partner has a minimum without a good fit.
2) Partner would seldom double here even with good trumps. You have a lot of values partner doesn't know about (the AQ behind the strong hand).
3) The opponents have bid game on not a lot of values, and the other table likely did not start with this auction. Even if 4♥x makes, it may only lose you two (more) IMPs.
Thoughts? (Not trying to argue with people, just seeing if anyone is similarly swayed. I think I would still pass.)
1) LHO had to make a guess on not very much information; his partner could have a pretty wide range of hands. The penalty could be pretty substantial if his partner has a minimum without a good fit.
2) Partner would seldom double here even with good trumps. You have a lot of values partner doesn't know about (the AQ behind the strong hand).
3) The opponents have bid game on not a lot of values, and the other table likely did not start with this auction. Even if 4♥x makes, it may only lose you two (more) IMPs.
Thoughts? (Not trying to argue with people, just seeing if anyone is similarly swayed. I think I would still pass.)
#14
- Andy Bowles
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,993
- Joined: 2007-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:London, UK
Posted 2008-June-26, 01:36
Ken's arguments have converted me to a doubler. The point about them having wasted spade honours opposite a shortage seems especially pertinent.
If a double suggests unexpected defence, presumably that's in a side suit rather than in spades. If double increases the chance that partner will lead a diamond, I think it's worth it.
If a double suggests unexpected defence, presumably that's in a side suit rather than in spades. If double increases the chance that partner will lead a diamond, I think it's worth it.
... 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
#15
- 5-level belongs to me
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,128
- Joined: 2004-August-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Glasgow Scotland
- Interests:Poems Computers
Posted 2008-June-26, 04:31
rogerclee, on Jun 25 2008, 08:09 PM, said:
IMPs, All Red, Third Seat ♠ J87xxx ♥ x ♦ AQ9x ♣ 7x
1NT - (Dbl) - 3♠ - (4♥)
P - (P) - ?
1NT was 12-14, and 3♠ was preemptive.
Agree with 3♠? Now what?
1NT - (Dbl) - 3♠ - (4♥)
P - (P) - ?
1NT was 12-14, and 3♠ was preemptive.
Agree with 3♠? Now what?
- Over 1N(_X), 4♠ = 10, 3♠ = 9
- OVer (4♥), _P = 10, _X = 6, 4♠ = 4.
#16
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,151
- Joined: 2003-June-11
- Location:Southern California
Posted 2008-June-26, 09:39
rogerclee, on Jun 25 2008, 11:30 PM, said:
This was a problem in our newspaper that I thought was interesting. My reaction was pretty much "pass wtp" like most here, but several points in the paper made me think double was at least worth consideration:
1) LHO had to make a guess on not very much information; his partner could have a pretty wide range of hands. The penalty could be pretty substantial if his partner has a minimum without a good fit.
2) Partner would seldom double here even with good trumps. You have a lot of values partner doesn't know about (the AQ behind the strong hand).
3) The opponents have bid game on not a lot of values, and the other table likely did not start with this auction. Even if 4♥x makes, it may only lose you two (more) IMPs.
Thoughts? (Not trying to argue with people, just seeing if anyone is similarly swayed. I think I would still pass.)
1) LHO had to make a guess on not very much information; his partner could have a pretty wide range of hands. The penalty could be pretty substantial if his partner has a minimum without a good fit.
2) Partner would seldom double here even with good trumps. You have a lot of values partner doesn't know about (the AQ behind the strong hand).
3) The opponents have bid game on not a lot of values, and the other table likely did not start with this auction. Even if 4♥x makes, it may only lose you two (more) IMPs.
Thoughts? (Not trying to argue with people, just seeing if anyone is similarly swayed. I think I would still pass.)
Marshall LOL.
"Phil" on BBO
#17
- 5555
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,520
- Joined: 2003-September-04
- Gender:Male
Posted 2008-June-26, 13:08
Maybe RHO's ♠KQxx opposite LHO's x are not that useless after partner leads his ♠A?
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
#18
- Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,586
- Joined: 2005-September-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
- Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor
Posted 2008-June-26, 13:15
cherdano, on Jun 26 2008, 02:08 PM, said:
Maybe RHO's ♠KQxx opposite LHO's x are not that useless after partner leads his ♠A?
But they are rather useless after partner then switches to a diamond through the King in dummy. Sure, they might be used to pitch good clubs.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
-P.J. Painter.
#19
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 575
- Joined: 2006-November-07
Posted 2008-June-26, 13:43
pclayton, on Jun 25 2008, 11:40 PM, said:
I think this is such an automatic pass. OK, we have a couple of goodies outside out spades, BFD. Like Justin says, why would partner EVER find a diamond lead on this auction, with or without the x?
He doesn't need to lead a Diamond to beat the hand, it's not as though you had KQJ of Diamonds. I think the double is based on the gamble that your AQ of Diamonds is well-placed over dummy's King and that partner can find the switch after winning the first trick with the Ace of Spades or a high club honor. The double should warn him not to lead a spade in general, as a preemptive hand that doubles the final contract promises values elsewhere.
Seeking input from anyone who doesn't frequently "wtp", "Lol" or post to merely "Agree with ..."
Page 1 of 1