On Nov 9, 4:33 pm, KWSchneider <questionofbala...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This happened to our teammates and cost us another match:
> Red vs White: IMPS Swiss
> You have: xxx JT98xx T9xx -
> Auction > (1C) 1N (2C) 2D [xfer] (3C) X (P) ??
> Bail or Bid?
> Cheers, > Kurt
The correct answer is to pass. I might not do this at the table and the result from pulling could be correct, but there is no doubt in my mind that I should pass with this hand.
On Nov 9, 1:33 pm, KWSchneider <questionofbala...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This happened to our teammates and cost us another match:
> Red vs White: IMPS Swiss
> You have: xxx JT98xx T9xx -
> Auction > (1C) 1N (2C) 2D [xfer] (3C) X (P) ??
> Bail or Bid?
> Cheers, > Kurt
Unless you have an agreement that 2D transfer promises nothing, a pass here is more prudent. Partner probably thinks you have something. It's possible there's no recovery from 3CX.
> Unless you have an agreement that 2D transfer promises > nothing, a pass here is more prudent. Partner probably > thinks you have something. It's possible there's no recovery > from 3CX.
I think the sixth heart makes it very likely that 3H won't be too bad. I vote for a retransfer on this. There are some hands where you have to grit your teeth and pass figuring that they'll make their doubled contract but you'll go down even further if you bid on. This isn't one of them.
> This happened to our teammates and cost us another match:
> Red vs White: IMPS Swiss
> You have: xxx JT98xx T9xx -
> Auction > (1C) 1N (2C) 2D [xfer] (3C) X (P) ??
> Bail or Bid?
> Cheers, > Kurt
Bid. The choice is to figure which brings a smaller minus: 3CX making - maybe with overtrick - or how many down in 3HX. The only real chance for a plus score is Pass, hoping partner has it set, but that is a slim chance indeed and I would maybe Pass at MPs.
> > 3D to retransfer seems right. Partner was hoping you had something > > but you don't
> > Nick France
> Unless you have a specific agreement, why isn't 3D just diamonds?
> Eric Leong
> Re-transfer is what I thought everyone played (except you?) > Raija- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Well, since this is the first time I ever heard of a retransfer, I suppose I am not one of the every one crowd. Still, I would question the inability to show something like: S xx H KQxxx D KJ10xx C x as a price to get out with a weak six card heart suit.
On Nov 9, 1:33 pm, KWSchneider <questionofbala...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This happened to our teammates and cost us another match:
> Red vs White: IMPS Swiss
> You have: xxx JT98xx T9xx -
> Auction > (1C) 1N (2C) 2D [xfer] (3C) X (P) ??
> Bail or Bid?
> Cheers, > Kurt
Certainly, partner can't be doubling on a trump stack as opener is very unlikely to be bidding 3C on a shaky club suit. I would think partner's double is more along the lines of: S Axxx H Ax D Axx C AJxx. If so 3Cx looks like a very scary one trick set. But if declarer can pick off partner's club jack, 3Cx is making. So I would bid 3H. Partner might take the hint that with a game going hand I would just bid 4H with a six card suit.
>>> On Nov 9, 4:33 pm, KWSchneider <questionofbala...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> This happened to our teammates and cost us another match: >>>> Red vs White: IMPS Swiss >>>> You have: xxx JT98xx T9xx - >>>> Auction >>>> (1C) 1N (2C) 2D [xfer] (3C) X (P) ?? >>>> Bail or Bid? >>>> Cheers, >>>> Kurt >>> 3D to retransfer seems right. Partner was hoping you had something >>> but you don't >>> Nick France >> Unless you have a specific agreement, why isn't 3D just diamonds?
>> Eric Leong
>> Re-transfer is what I thought everyone played (except you?) >> Raija- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> Well, since this is the first time I ever heard of a retransfer, I > suppose I am not one of the every one crowd. Still, I would question > the inability to show something like: S xx H KQxxx D KJ10xx C x > as a price to get out with a weak six card heart suit.
> Eric Leong
I don't play retransfers either, except in a couple very specific auctions. But Eric, even if you've never heard of a retransfer, your argument is silly. If 3D is a retransfer demanding opener bid 3H, then you don't need 3H natural and can use it to show diamonds.
On Nov 9, 1:33 pm, KWSchneider <questionofbala...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This happened to our teammates and cost us another match:
> Red vs White: IMPS Swiss
> You have: xxx JT98xx T9xx -
> Auction > (1C) 1N (2C) 2D [xfer] (3C) X (P) ??
> Bail or Bid?
> Cheers, > Kurt
I would pass if I trusted my partner. Couldn't opener have, say,
AKx xx Axxx AQTx
for his 1nt overcall?
I haven't promised anything except a desire to compete in 2h. If overcaller is doubling, counting on my for a trick or two, then he is wrong.
Now, if I had 3=5=5=0 shape I might pull to 3d (the idea that 3d here is a retransfer is new to me, and I wouldn't catch that at the table) because my unbid 5-bagger might coincide with opener's AKxx of diamonds, and result in 1 fewer diamond trick than he is counting on.
Still, at IMPs, doubler should be playing for a 2-trick set, since increase +50 to +100 isn't really worth it. I have no reason to override his opinion.
> Certainly, partner can't be doubling on a trump stack as opener is > very unlikely to be bidding 3C on a shaky club suit. I would think > partner's double is more along the lines of: > S Axxx H Ax D Axx C AJxx. If so 3Cx looks like a very scary one > trick set. But if declarer can pick off partner's club jack, 3Cx is > making. So I would bid 3H. Partner might take the hint that with a > game going hand I would just bid 4H with a six card suit.
> Eric Leong
In my opinion, doubling 3c, at IMPs, when the opps are NV, with
Axxx Ax Axx AJxx
is a poor percentage bid. I would pass 3c with that hand. I don't see this hand as being way more defensive than my 1nt overcall would typically be, I don't think I have a huge surprise for declarer, and I don't see us getting a 2-trick set.
> I would pass if I trusted my partner. Couldn't opener have, say,
> AKx > xx > Axxx > AQTx
> for his 1nt overcall?
> I haven't promised anything except a desire to compete in 2h. If > overcaller is doubling, counting on my for a trick or two, then he is > wrong.
> Now, if I had 3=5=5=0 shape I might pull to 3d (the idea that 3d here > is a retransfer is new to me, and I wouldn't catch that at the table) > because my unbid 5-bagger might coincide with opener's AKxx of > diamonds, and result in 1 fewer diamond trick than he is counting on.
> Still, at IMPs, doubler should be playing for a 2-trick set, since > increase +50 to +100 isn't really worth it. I have no reason to > override his opinion.
> Henrysun909
Sure you can play your opponents to be idiots. But if your opponents were reasonable then you would be an idiot to play partner for this kind of hand.
> > 3D to retransfer seems right. Partner was hoping you had something > > but you don't
> > Nick France
> Unless you have a specific agreement, why isn't 3D just diamonds?
> Eric Leong- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
It is a common assumption and one I'd make if playing with a good player and we haven't had a discussion. You can play it as natural if you want but this seems to be in the minority (no judgment by me of which is best).
If you are 5-5 in the reds you can always rebid 4D after the retransfer. This may be a level higher but the advantage of having the strong hand play in 3H when you are weak (and the more common occurence) out ways any disadvantage of needing the 4 level to show a 5-5 in the reds.
> > I would pass if I trusted my partner. Couldn't opener have, say,
> > AKx > > xx > > Axxx > > AQTx
> > for his 1nt overcall?
> > I haven't promised anything except a desire to compete in 2h. If > > overcaller is doubling, counting on my for a trick or two, then he is > > wrong.
> > Now, if I had 3=5=5=0 shape I might pull to 3d (the idea that 3d here > > is a retransfer is new to me, and I wouldn't catch that at the table) > > because my unbid 5-bagger might coincide with opener's AKxx of > > diamonds, and result in 1 fewer diamond trick than he is counting on.
> > Still, at IMPs, doubler should be playing for a 2-trick set, since > > increase +50 to +100 isn't really worth it. I have no reason to > > override his opinion.
> > Henrysun909
> Sure you can play your opponents to be idiots. But if your opponents > were reasonable then you would be an idiot to play partner for this > kind of hand.
> Eric Leong- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I'm very glad that if I have a choice between playing opponents to be idiots or partner to be an idiot, I always choose opponents, and what's more I am always right. (Sadly my partner takes the same approach, on occasion incorrectly.)
I've seen a few hands recently where the responding half of the partnership thinks that 1C (1NT) 2C is artificial, and the opening half doesn't. That's one possibility for what is going on.
Partner's double is more likely to be based on lots of soft club cards, something like KJ10x or QJ109 rather than AJxx. I can still see the temptation to pull, because our hand is right at the extreme of what partner might be expected.
> >>> On Nov 9, 4:33 pm, KWSchneider <questionofbala...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> This happened to our teammates and cost us another match: > >>>> Red vs White: IMPS Swiss > >>>> You have: xxx JT98xx T9xx - > >>>> Auction > >>>> (1C) 1N (2C) 2D [xfer] (3C) X (P) ?? > >>>> Bail or Bid? > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> Kurt > >>> 3D to retransfer seems right. Partner was hoping you had something > >>> but you don't > >>> Nick France > >> Unless you have a specific agreement, why isn't 3D just diamonds?
> >> Eric Leong
> >> Re-transfer is what I thought everyone played (except you?) > >> Raija- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
> > Well, since this is the first time I ever heard of a retransfer, I > > suppose I am not one of the every one crowd. Still, I would question > > the inability to show something like: S xx H KQxxx D KJ10xx C x > > as a price to get out with a weak six card heart suit.
> > Eric Leong
> I don't play retransfers either, except in a couple very specific > auctions. But Eric, even if you've never heard of a retransfer, your > argument is silly. If 3D is a retransfer demanding opener bid 3H, then > you don't need 3H natural and can use it to show diamonds.
I certainly don't play retransfers in this auction (well, I don't play transfers in this auction either, but one can think of equivalent auctions).
And the argument is not silly. While you might be able to bid 3H on a game forcing hand with both red suits, why on earth would you not want to bid 3D NF to compete in either red suit on this auction?
> > > I would pass if I trusted my partner. Couldn't opener have, say,
> > > AKx > > > xx > > > Axxx > > > AQTx
> > > for his 1nt overcall?
> > > I haven't promised anything except a desire to compete in 2h. If > > > overcaller is doubling, counting on my for a trick or two, then he is > > > wrong.
> > > Now, if I had 3=5=5=0 shape I might pull to 3d (the idea that 3d here > > > is a retransfer is new to me, and I wouldn't catch that at the table) > > > because my unbid 5-bagger might coincide with opener's AKxx of > > > diamonds, and result in 1 fewer diamond trick than he is counting on.
> > > Still, at IMPs, doubler should be playing for a 2-trick set, since > > > increase +50 to +100 isn't really worth it. I have no reason to > > > override his opinion.
> > > Henrysun909
> > Sure you can play your opponents to be idiots. But if your opponents > > were reasonable then you would be an idiot to play partner for this > > kind of hand.
> > Eric Leong- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> I'm very glad that if I have a choice between playing opponents to be > idiots or partner to be an idiot, I always choose opponents, and > what's more I am always right. (Sadly my partner takes the same > approach, on occasion incorrectly.)
> I've seen a few hands recently where the responding half of the > partnership thinks that 1C (1NT) 2C is artificial, and the opening > half doesn't. That's one possibility for what is going on.
This can hardly be a factor here. Presumably, you would have asked and looked at the opponent's card before making your decision.
> Partner's double is more likely to be based on lots of soft club > cards, something like KJ10x or QJ109 rather than AJxx. I can still see > the temptation to pull, because our hand is right at the extreme of > what partner might be expected.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I suppose if you know your LHO opponent is either clueless or some cripple you would have a stronger case to pass 3Cx. On the other hand, if your LHO is Hamman, Zia, or a Meckwell who bid 3C, I would question your sanity if you left the double in.
> > > > I would pass if I trusted my partner. Couldn't opener have, say,
> > > > AKx > > > > xx > > > > Axxx > > > > AQTx
> > > > for his 1nt overcall?
> > > > I haven't promised anything except a desire to compete in 2h. If > > > > overcaller is doubling, counting on my for a trick or two, then he is > > > > wrong.
> > > > Now, if I had 3=5=5=0 shape I might pull to 3d (the idea that 3d here > > > > is a retransfer is new to me, and I wouldn't catch that at the table) > > > > because my unbid 5-bagger might coincide with opener's AKxx of > > > > diamonds, and result in 1 fewer diamond trick than he is counting on.
> > > > Still, at IMPs, doubler should be playing for a 2-trick set, since > > > > increase +50 to +100 isn't really worth it. I have no reason to > > > > override his opinion.
> > > > Henrysun909
> > > Sure you can play your opponents to be idiots. But if your opponents > > > were reasonable then you would be an idiot to play partner for this > > > kind of hand.
> > > Eric Leong- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > I'm very glad that if I have a choice between playing opponents to be > > idiots or partner to be an idiot, I always choose opponents, and > > what's more I am always right. (Sadly my partner takes the same > > approach, on occasion incorrectly.)
> > I've seen a few hands recently where the responding half of the > > partnership thinks that 1C (1NT) 2C is artificial, and the opening > > half doesn't. That's one possibility for what is going on.
> This can hardly be a factor here. Presumably, you would have asked and > looked at the opponent's card before making your decision.
That won't help if RHO is the one who incorrectly thinks it is artificial, because systemically all that has happened is that he has misbid. Of course I might get some sense of whether he is feeling uncomfortable about the auction. And I might know if my RHO is the sort of player that might happen to. (To take your example, I would not expect Meckwell not to know what 2C meant here.)
> > Partner's double is more likely to be based on lots of soft club > > cards, something like KJ10x or QJ109 rather than AJxx. I can still see > > the temptation to pull, because our hand is right at the extreme of > > what partner might be expected.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> I suppose if you know your LHO opponent is either clueless or some > cripple you would have a stronger case to pass 3Cx. On the other hand, > if your LHO is Hamman, Zia, or a Meckwell who bid 3C, I would question > your sanity if you left the double in.
There is a wide range of players between "clueless or some cripple" and Hamman, Zia or a Meckwell.
p.s. why should a cripple be particularly poor at bridge? There are a lot of good bridge players in wheelchairs.
> > > > > I haven't promised anything except a desire to compete in 2h. If > > > > > overcaller is doubling, counting on my for a trick or two, then he is > > > > > wrong.
> > > > > Now, if I had 3=5=5=0 shape I might pull to 3d (the idea that 3d here > > > > > is a retransfer is new to me, and I wouldn't catch that at the table) > > > > > because my unbid 5-bagger might coincide with opener's AKxx of > > > > > diamonds, and result in 1 fewer diamond trick than he is counting on.
> > > > > Still, at IMPs, doubler should be playing for a 2-trick set, since > > > > > increase +50 to +100 isn't really worth it. I have no reason to > > > > > override his opinion.
> > > > > Henrysun909
> > > > Sure you can play your opponents to be idiots. But if your opponents > > > > were reasonable then you would be an idiot to play partner for this > > > > kind of hand.
> > > > Eric Leong- Hide quoted text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > I'm very glad that if I have a choice between playing opponents to be > > > idiots or partner to be an idiot, I always choose opponents, and > > > what's more I am always right. (Sadly my partner takes the same > > > approach, on occasion incorrectly.)
> > > I've seen a few hands recently where the responding half of the > > > partnership thinks that 1C (1NT) 2C is artificial, and the opening > > > half doesn't. That's one possibility for what is going on.
> > This can hardly be a factor here. Presumably, you would have asked and > > looked at the opponent's card before making your decision.
> That won't help if RHO is the one who incorrectly thinks it is > artificial, because systemically all that has happened is that he has > misbid. Of course I might get some sense of whether he is feeling > uncomfortable about the auction. And I might know if my RHO is the > sort of player that might happen to. (To take your example, I would > not expect Meckwell not to know what 2C meant here.)
> > > Partner's double is more likely to be based on lots of soft club > > > cards, something like KJ10x or QJ109 rather than AJxx. I can still see > > > the temptation to pull, because our hand is right at the extreme of > > > what partner might be expected.- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > I suppose if you know your LHO opponent is either clueless or some > > cripple you would have a stronger case to pass 3Cx. On the other hand, > > if your LHO is Hamman, Zia, or a Meckwell who bid 3C, I would question > > your sanity if you left the double in.
> There is a wide range of players between "clueless or some cripple" > and Hamman, Zia or a Meckwell.
> p.s. why should a cripple be particularly poor at bridge? There are a > lot of good bridge players in wheelchairs.
> > Eric Leong- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
"Cripple" was an expression used a lot at my old club where I played money bridge as meaning someone really clueless and hopeless at the game.
So I presume you agree there are certain individuals you would not leave the double in? Or are you still asserting you would leave the double in no matter who you are playing against?
> > >>> On Nov 9, 4:33 pm, KWSchneider <questionofbala...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>>> This happened to our teammates and cost us another match: > > >>>> Red vs White: IMPS Swiss > > >>>> You have: xxx JT98xx T9xx - > > >>>> Auction > > >>>> (1C) 1N (2C) 2D [xfer] (3C) X (P) ?? > > >>>> Bail or Bid? > > >>>> Cheers, > > >>>> Kurt > > >>> 3D to retransfer seems right. Partner was hoping you had something > > >>> but you don't > > >>> Nick France > > >> Unless you have a specific agreement, why isn't 3D just diamonds?
> > >> Eric Leong
> > >> Re-transfer is what I thought everyone played (except you?) > > >> Raija- Hide quoted text -
> > >> - Show quoted text -
> > > Well, since this is the first time I ever heard of a retransfer, I > > > suppose I am not one of the every one crowd. Still, I would question > > > the inability to show something like: S xx H KQxxx D KJ10xx C x > > > as a price to get out with a weak six card heart suit.
> > > Eric Leong
> > I don't play retransfers either, except in a couple very specific > > auctions. But Eric, even if you've never heard of a retransfer, your > > argument is silly. If 3D is a retransfer demanding opener bid 3H, then > > you don't need 3H natural and can use it to show diamonds.
> I certainly don't play retransfers in this auction (well, I don't play > transfers in this auction either, but one can think of equivalent > auctions).
> And the argument is not silly. While you might be able to bid 3H on a > game forcing hand with both red suits, why on earth would you not want > to bid 3D NF to compete in either red suit on this auction?- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Hmmm no response ....your logic must have completely bowled him over ;-)
|
