Bail or Bid?
KWSchneider
Red vs White: IMPS Swiss
You have: xxx JT98xx T9xx -
Auction
(1C) 1N (2C) 2D [xfer] (3C) X (P) ??
Bail or Bid?
Cheers,
Kurt
Nick France
3D to retransfer seems right. Partner was hoping you had something
but you don't
Nick France
boblipton
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.
Bob
jogs
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.
Adam Beneschan
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.
-- Adam
Raija D
"KWSchneider" <question...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:35fe375d-b90b-4dd6...@p33g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
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.
Eric Leong
Unless you have a specific agreement, why isn't 3D just diamonds?
Eric Leong
Raija D
"Eric Leong" <ewleo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5e662cb1-b1da-47d6...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Eric Leong
Re-transfer is what I thought everyone played (except you?)
Raija
Eric Leong
> "Eric Leong" <ewleong...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - 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
Eric Leong
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
Alan Malloy
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.
--
Cheers,
Alan (San Jose, California, USA)
Co Wiersma
"KWSchneider" <question...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:35fe375d-b90b-4dd6...@p33g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
bid
on the side
a note about display
the bidding sequence is much easyer to read
when you keep one line for one bidding round
Co Wiersma
henry...@yahoo.com
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
henry...@yahoo.com
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.
Henrysun909
Eric Leong
wrote:
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
Nick France
>
> - 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.
Nick France
Frances
>
> - 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.
Frances
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?
Eric Leong
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.
Eric Leong
Frances
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
>
> - 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?
Eric Leong
If you concede
ted
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hmmm no response ....your logic must have completely bowled him
over ;-)