🚀 go-pugleaf

NFord wrote:
> Had this at IMPs, unfavorable, with RHO opening 2C (strong):
>
> x-xx-KQJT9x-QJT9
>
> What would you venture?

At unfavorable, even 3D is questionable. No, you won't suffer too much
damage in 3DX, but you dont want to encourage a raise. It is very
unlikely that a 5DX sacrifice will be good.

"NFord" <nrfordcxnwsgrp@REMOVE_THIS_cardsharkgames.com> wrote in message
news:r1Lif.20227$ih5.10058@dukeread11...
> Had this at IMPs, unfavorable, with RHO opening 2C (strong):
>
> x-xx-KQJT9x-QJT9
>
> What would you venture?


2D for me, and out.  Partner will need to be the one bidding after that
call.  He can expect a very good suit and "shape" for that call.  Red on
Red, I would call 3D.

Sandy Barnes

NFord wrote:
> Had this at IMPs, unfavorable, with RHO opening 2C (strong):
>
> x-xx-KQJT9x-QJT9
>
> What would you venture?


I would bid 3D even at unfavorable vulnerability. At favorable
vulnerability, I would bid 4D.
Your diamond intermediates are very good so your opponents are less
likely to sit for a penalty.
The worst you expect to go down is 500 and if you go down 500 then the
opponents should have at least a game.
You have little defense so your opponents might even have a slam.
By bidding 3D you are rooting for:
1. Your opponent's underbid to just game.
2. Your opponent's find a slam but get to the wrong slam.
3. The opponent's have a grand but they underbid.
4. Taking a penalty which is less than what the opponent's can make.

Eric Leong

NFord wrote:
> Had this at IMPs, unfavorable, with RHO opening 2C (strong):
>
> x-xx-KQJT9x-QJT9
>
> What would you venture?

3D. They just won't hit you with these intermediates, and we use up
space. I'd bid 4D at any other vulnerability, and matchpoints
favorable, I might try 5D. (My partners realize that I adjust for
vulnerability, and I take any excuse to overcall 2C.)

And, heck, I'm going to take seven tricks. If I'm -500 against 450 at
the other table, no real harm done. If partner has JT9xx KJT9xx - xx,
well, that's just too bad. (My partners smile when they put these down,
because in my style, we're one higher than everyone else, so doom is at
hand.)

2D just gives them *more* room, and more information. It's terrible.
Pass beats 2D. If my partner bid 4D at these colors with this, I'd
disagree, but I'd view it as defensible. At matchpoints, it may well be
right; it's very hard to hit you and stick you when right.

--JRM

"Never preempt in partner's void." - Edgar Kaplan

"NFord" <nrfordcxnwsgrp@REMOVE_THIS_cardsharkgames.com> wrote in message
news:r1Lif.20227$ih5.10058@dukeread11...
> Had this at IMPs, unfavorable, with RHO opening 2C (strong):
>
> x-xx-KQJT9x-QJT9
>
> What would you venture?
>
3D.

NFord wrote:
> Had this at IMPs, unfavorable, with RHO opening 2C (strong):
>
> x-xx-KQJT9x-QJT9
>
> What would you venture?

2 diamonds while not much interference any is better than none.

> "NFord" <nrfordcxnwsgrp@REMOVE_THIS_cardsharkgames.com> wrote in message
> news:r1Lif.20227$ih5.10058@dukeread11...
>
>>Had this at IMPs, unfavorable, with RHO opening 2C (strong):
>>
>>x-xx-KQJT9x-QJT9
>>
>>What would you venture?


2D.  I'm not going to suggest a sacrifice, just a lead.

Bob

"NFord" <nrfordcxnwsgrp@REMOVE_THIS_cardsharkgames.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:r1Lif.20227$ih5.10058@dukeread11...
> Had this at IMPs, unfavorable, with RHO opening 2C (strong):
>
> x-xx-KQJT9x-QJT9
>
> What would you venture?

3D

Gerben

"John R. Mayne" <jrmayne@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133225423.434149.171010@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> NFord wrote:
>> Had this at IMPs, unfavorable, with RHO opening 2C (strong):
>>
>> x-xx-KQJT9x-QJT9
>>
>> What would you venture?
>
> 3D. They just won't hit you with these intermediates, and we use up
> space. I'd bid 4D at any other vulnerability, and matchpoints
> favorable, I might try 5D. (My partners realize that I adjust for
> vulnerability, and I take any excuse to overcall 2C.)
>
> And, heck, I'm going to take seven tricks. If I'm -500 against 450 at
> the other table, no real harm done. If partner has JT9xx KJT9xx - xx,
> well, that's just too bad. (My partners smile when they put these down,
> because in my style, we're one higher than everyone else, so doom is at
> hand.)
>
> 2D just gives them *more* room, and more information. It's terrible.
> Pass beats 2D. If my partner bid 4D at these colors with this, I'd
> disagree, but I'd view it as defensible. At matchpoints, it may well be
> right; it's very hard to hit you and stick you when right.
>
> --JRM
>
> "Never preempt in partner's void." - Edgar Kaplan

I certainly respect the opinions offered regarding 3D.  However, while 2D
consumes almost no room, it may cause some slight issues to responder, and
it takes them out of their comfortable auction with the 2D response.  In
addition, it will help partner judge the hand at very low risk.  While 3D
might be safe for the moment, it does put your side in harm's way, double
may be better than their game.  When you think about it, 3D is more likely
to hurt your side when things go wrong, than it is likely to impede their
side from bidding a good slam.  A risk vs. reward judgment.

Sandy Barnes

If you were to bid, 4D would be the most effective, since opponents
will
have no bids below game.
Suppose they double you, and lets give partner a really good hand.

xxx
xxxxx
xx
Kxx

down 2 for -500.   This bid will only work if the opponents have slam
and do not bid it,
or do not have slam and bid it.     I personally, do not like those
odds.

I am a passer.

"NFord" <nrfordcxnwsgrp@REMOVE_THIS_cardsharkgames.com> wrote in message
news:r1Lif.20227$ih5.10058@dukeread11...
> Had this at IMPs, unfavorable, with RHO opening 2C (strong):
>
> x-xx-KQJT9x-QJT9
>
> What would you venture?

I want to bid 4D and would do so automatically at any other vul.

The problem with 3D is that if LHO has both majors he can bid 4D and find
the best fit so you lose one of the key benefits from being obstructive,
namely LHO has to guess which major to play in if equal or similar length
and weakish and can easily guess wrong. With 5S+4H and a 6 count 4S would be
clear over 4D but could easily be opposite a balanced 2434 and your partners
5 trumps will set it whilst 4H is cold. Over 3D there is the option to cue
and get to 4H.

Also, with just one major they will always find their fit but 4D makes it
hard to identify hands with a mild slam try whereas over 3D they can bid 3M
then cue on the way to 4M just in case.

On balance I think that at IMPS I am prepared to risk an occasional -800
given that often I will go for -200 or -500 against 450 to 980.  I would bid
2D for the lead at pairs and this vul.  Also I would not consider bidding 4D
at this vul without the solid runs in my 2 suits - ie with trumps KQJxxx or
clubs QJTx I would be back to 2D.

Kieran Dyke wrote:
> "ted" <morristed@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:1133235318.354601.49570@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > NFord wrote:
> > > Had this at IMPs, unfavorable, with RHO opening 2C (strong):
> > >
> > > x-xx-KQJT9x-QJT9
> > >
> > > What would you venture?
> >
> > 2 diamonds while not much interference any is better than none.
> >
>
> It gives them a heap of extra bidding options - the opposite of preemption.

but it moves them into less used bidding avenues where cobwebs abound.
Against really good opposition nothing will help so what are you really
losing. In retrospect the 3D bidders are probably right in risking -500
that the opps with terrible diamond spot cards won't sit for an X
anyway.

> I guess if you've bid your diamonds you'll know what to lead, though. Not
> likely partner will be on lead anyway.
>
> Tiggrr

Sandy E. Barnes wrote:
> "John R. Mayne" <jrmayne@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1133225423.434149.171010@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > NFord wrote:
> >> Had this at IMPs, unfavorable, with RHO opening 2C (strong):
> >>
> >> x-xx-KQJT9x-QJT9
> >>
> >> What would you venture?
> >
> > 3D. They just won't hit you with these intermediates, and we use up
> > space. I'd bid 4D at any other vulnerability, and matchpoints
> > favorable, I might try 5D. (My partners realize that I adjust for
> > vulnerability, and I take any excuse to overcall 2C.)
> >
> > And, heck, I'm going to take seven tricks. If I'm -500 against 450 at
> > the other table, no real harm done. If partner has JT9xx KJT9xx - xx,
> > well, that's just too bad. (My partners smile when they put these down,
> > because in my style, we're one higher than everyone else, so doom is at
> > hand.)
> >
> > 2D just gives them *more* room, and more information. It's terrible.
> > Pass beats 2D. If my partner bid 4D at these colors with this, I'd
> > disagree, but I'd view it as defensible. At matchpoints, it may well be
> > right; it's very hard to hit you and stick you when right.
> >
> > --JRM
> >
> > "Never preempt in partner's void." - Edgar Kaplan
>
> I certainly respect the opinions offered regarding 3D.  However, while 2D
> consumes almost no room, it may cause some slight issues to responder, and
> it takes them out of their comfortable auction with the 2D response.

Blargh. If they are slack-jawed farmers, they'll have double for
penalty and pass for whatever 2D was, and that puts them at even and
declarer at an advantage in the play.

If they are not, they likely have options like double=poverty,
pass=values, suit=suit. They have double and pass without bypassing 2D;
that's an extra level. It's a free play.

  In
> addition, it will help partner judge the hand at very low risk.  While 3D
> might be safe for the moment, it does put your side in harm's way, double
> may be better than their game.

That's really unlikely.

 When you think about it, 3D is more likely
> to hurt your side when things go wrong, than it is likely to impede their
> side from bidding a good slam.

I think that's untrue, and I've thought about it. The way things can go
wrong is that it will tip the play. But getting cracked? Unlikely in
the extreme. If partner raises, that's groovy. I don't want to give RHO
a cheap call. Sucking up a full level makes things harder against good
players and bad players.

--JRM

<goffster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133281012.287790.74260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> If you were to bid, 4D would be the most effective, since opponents
> will have no bids below game.
> Suppose they double you, and lets give partner a really good hand.
>
> xxx
> xxxxx
> xx
> Kxx
>
> down 2 for -500.   This bid will only work if the opponents have slam
> and do not bid it, or do not have slam and bid it.

I was swinging for the fences late in the match, so I bid 4D.
Bidding continued: (P)-5D-(5S)-all pass, making 5.
(Someone made the interesting point that 4D encourages
5D from pard, as it did.)

-500 versus their non-vul game wouldn't have been any
big deal compared to the chance of either keeping them
out of the right contract, slam-wise.

I asked for future reference when next time I may *not*
be swinging.

Thanks to all.

"Sandy E. Barnes" <sandybarnes007@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:s7CdnYU5p-ZeHxbeRVn-og@comcast.com...
> "NFord" <nrfordcxnwsgrp@REMOVE_THIS_cardsharkgames.com> wrote in message
> news:r1Lif.20227$ih5.10058@dukeread11...
> > Had this at IMPs, unfavorable, with RHO opening 2C (strong):
> >
> > x-xx-KQJT9x-QJT9
> >
> > What would you venture?
>
>
> 2D for me, and out.  Partner will need to be the one bidding after that
> call.  He can expect a very good suit and "shape" for that call.  Red on
> Red, I would call 3D.
>
> Sandy Barnes
>
>
>

Bah - I'd rather pass. 3D consumes some space. (non-vul, I'd go for 4D).
Pass conceals your distribution. 2D has no upsides.

Tiggrr

"ted" <morristed@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1133235318.354601.49570@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> NFord wrote:
> > Had this at IMPs, unfavorable, with RHO opening 2C (strong):
> >
> > x-xx-KQJT9x-QJT9
> >
> > What would you venture?
>
> 2 diamonds while not much interference any is better than none.
>

It gives them a heap of extra bidding options - the opposite of preemption.
I guess if you've bid your diamonds you'll know what to lead, though. Not
likely partner will be on lead anyway.

Tiggrr

"John R. Mayne" <jrmayne@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133308231.346086.123810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sandy E. Barnes wrote:
>> "John R. Mayne" <jrmayne@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1133225423.434149.171010@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > NFord wrote:
>> >> Had this at IMPs, unfavorable, with RHO opening 2C (strong):
>> >>
>> >> x-xx-KQJT9x-QJT9
>> >>
>> >> What would you venture?
>> >
>> > 3D. They just won't hit you with these intermediates, and we use up
>> > space. I'd bid 4D at any other vulnerability, and matchpoints
>> > favorable, I might try 5D. (My partners realize that I adjust for
>> > vulnerability, and I take any excuse to overcall 2C.)
>> >
>> > And, heck, I'm going to take seven tricks. If I'm -500 against 450 at
>> > the other table, no real harm done. If partner has JT9xx KJT9xx - xx,
>> > well, that's just too bad. (My partners smile when they put these down,
>> > because in my style, we're one higher than everyone else, so doom is at
>> > hand.)
>> >
>> > 2D just gives them *more* room, and more information. It's terrible.
>> > Pass beats 2D. If my partner bid 4D at these colors with this, I'd
>> > disagree, but I'd view it as defensible. At matchpoints, it may well be
>> > right; it's very hard to hit you and stick you when right.
>> >
>> > --JRM
>> >
>> > "Never preempt in partner's void." - Edgar Kaplan
>>
>> I certainly respect the opinions offered regarding 3D.  However, while 2D
>> consumes almost no room, it may cause some slight issues to responder,
>> and
>> it takes them out of their comfortable auction with the 2D response.
>
> Blargh. If they are slack-jawed farmers, they'll have double for
> penalty and pass for whatever 2D was, and that puts them at even and
> declarer at an advantage in the play.
>
> If they are not, they likely have options like double=poverty,
> pass=values, suit=suit. They have double and pass without bypassing 2D;
> that's an extra level. It's a free play.
>
>  In
>> addition, it will help partner judge the hand at very low risk.  While 3D
>> might be safe for the moment, it does put your side in harm's way, double
>> may be better than their game.
>
> That's really unlikely.
>
> When you think about it, 3D is more likely
>> to hurt your side when things go wrong, than it is likely to impede their
>> side from bidding a good slam.
>
> I think that's untrue, and I've thought about it. The way things can go
> wrong is that it will tip the play. But getting cracked? Unlikely in
> the extreme. If partner raises, that's groovy. I don't want to give RHO
> a cheap call. Sucking up a full level makes things harder against good
> players and bad players.
>
> --JRM

After 2C, the opponents see red and compute the results for double with you
at the 3 level.  Why not shoot it out for 500 if you have no interest in
bidding a slam with your 7 balanced opposite partner's planned 2NT rebid?
So you pass to let partner double with his balanced 22 or so, then you pass
for the number.  Very likely I believe, especially with 2 small diamonds in
each hand, or 2 small in partner's hand.  Sure beats plus 450.  Even the
weak players can work this out.

Now give either player a stiff/void, they know its golden after 3D from you.
Perhaps the same is true after only 2D, but there is less risk for a really
poor result playing in diamonds.  3D *may* press their auction, but it is a
double sided sword.  Why risk a huge negative swing with little hope of an
equally positive return if you survive the bid?

Sandy Barnes

Sandy E. Barnes wrote:
> "John R. Mayne" <jrmayne@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1133308231.346086.123810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Sandy E. Barnes wrote:
> >> "John R. Mayne" <jrmayne@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1133225423.434149.171010@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > NFord wrote:
> >> >> Had this at IMPs, unfavorable, with RHO opening 2C (strong):
> >> >>
> >> >> x-xx-KQJT9x-QJT9
> >> >>
> >> >> What would you venture?
> >> >
> >> > 3D. They just won't hit you with these intermediates, and we use up
> >> > space. I'd bid 4D at any other vulnerability, and matchpoints
> >> > favorable, I might try 5D. (My partners realize that I adjust for
> >> > vulnerability, and I take any excuse to overcall 2C.)
> >> >
> >> > And, heck, I'm going to take seven tricks. If I'm -500 against 450 at
> >> > the other table, no real harm done. If partner has JT9xx KJT9xx - xx,
> >> > well, that's just too bad. (My partners smile when they put these down,
> >> > because in my style, we're one higher than everyone else, so doom is at
> >> > hand.)
> >> >
> >> > 2D just gives them *more* room, and more information. It's terrible.
> >> > Pass beats 2D. If my partner bid 4D at these colors with this, I'd
> >> > disagree, but I'd view it as defensible. At matchpoints, it may well be
> >> > right; it's very hard to hit you and stick you when right.
> >> >
> >> > --JRM
> >> >
> >> > "Never preempt in partner's void." - Edgar Kaplan
> >>
> >> I certainly respect the opinions offered regarding 3D.  However, while 2D
> >> consumes almost no room, it may cause some slight issues to responder,
> >> and
> >> it takes them out of their comfortable auction with the 2D response.
> >
> > Blargh. If they are slack-jawed farmers, they'll have double for
> > penalty and pass for whatever 2D was, and that puts them at even and
> > declarer at an advantage in the play.
> >
> > If they are not, they likely have options like double=poverty,
> > pass=values, suit=suit. They have double and pass without bypassing 2D;
> > that's an extra level. It's a free play.
> >
> >  In
> >> addition, it will help partner judge the hand at very low risk.  While 3D
> >> might be safe for the moment, it does put your side in harm's way, double
> >> may be better than their game.
> >
> > That's really unlikely.
> >
> > When you think about it, 3D is more likely
> >> to hurt your side when things go wrong, than it is likely to impede their
> >> side from bidding a good slam.
> >
> > I think that's untrue, and I've thought about it. The way things can go
> > wrong is that it will tip the play. But getting cracked? Unlikely in
> > the extreme. If partner raises, that's groovy. I don't want to give RHO
> > a cheap call. Sucking up a full level makes things harder against good
> > players and bad players.
> >
> > --JRM
>
> After 2C, the opponents see red and compute the results for double with you
> at the 3 level.  Why not shoot it out for 500 if you have no interest in
> bidding a slam with your 7 balanced opposite partner's planned 2NT rebid?
> So you pass to let partner double with his balanced 22 or so, then you pass
> for the number.  Very likely I believe, especially with 2 small diamonds in
> each hand, or 2 small in partner's hand.  Sure beats plus 450.  Even the
> weak players can work this out.
>
> Now give either player a stiff/void, they know its golden after 3D from you.
> Perhaps the same is true after only 2D, but there is less risk for a really
> poor result playing in diamonds.  3D *may* press their auction, but it is a
> double sided sword.  Why risk a huge negative swing with little hope of an
> equally positive return if you survive the bid?
>
> Sandy Barnes

In 3Dx, you expect to take in you own hand five diamond tricks and two
club tricks for down two. Paying off 500 when your opponents can make
at least a not vulnerable game is hardly a major loss at imps.

Eric Leong

NFord <nrfordcxnwsgrp@remove_this_cardsharkgames.com> wrote:
 > Had this at IMPs, unfavorable, with RHO opening 2C (strong):

 > x-xx-KQJT9x-QJT9

	Why pre-empt after they have pre-empted themselves? Guess you
	could bid 2D for a teaser but at this vulnerability a good
	sacrifice doesn't seem likely at all and the lead would be
	really effective only against no-trump which the opponents
	will strain to play from the strong hand in any case.
--
	"Times change. These days, we learn from the philanthropists
	like the Rockefellers. First you rob everybody, then you give
	to the poor."

	[liki@iki.fi][http://www.iki.fi/liki][+358-40-759-2741]

<ewleongusa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133336725.510343.318490@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>> >> > NFord wrote:
>> >> >> Had this at IMPs, unfavorable, with RHO opening 2C (strong):
>> >> >>
>> >> >> x-xx-KQJT9x-QJT9
<snip>

> In 3Dx, you expect to take in you own hand five diamond tricks and two
> club tricks for down two. Paying off 500 when your opponents can make
> at least a not vulnerable game is hardly a major loss at imps.
>
> Eric Leong

Extending your thoughts --

Given that this hand has no defense, if partner cannot
contribute a single trick to a 3Dx contract, surely the
opponents have at least a small slam. So -500 would
be a very good result.

If pard has 1 trick to offer, we are only -300 and
they still probably have a small slam.

If pard has enough to set them at 4H/S without
any help from me, then with my 7 tricks and his
4, we can make 5D!!

In fact, if this analysis is correct (usual disclaimer
of my abilities here), not only is 3D safe, but even
4D is safe.  Am I missing something?

NFord

ewleongusa@hotmail.com wrote:

 > In 3Dx, you expect to take in you own hand five diamond tricks and two
 > club tricks for down two. Paying off 500 when your opponents can make
 > at least a not vulnerable game is hardly a major loss at imps.

	The risk of losing control before the clubs are good or the
	opponents being able to negotiate a club ruff is evident.
	Then again, partner might not be totally bust.
--
	"It is said that Windows'98 is so similar to Windows'95 because
        Apple hasn't invented anything worth copying since 1995."

	[liki@iki.fi][http://www.iki.fi/liki][+358-40-759-2741]

NFord <nrfordcxnwsgrp@REMOVE_THIS_cardsharkgames.com> wrote:

> Extending your thoughts --
>
> Given that this hand has no defense, if partner cannot
> contribute a single trick to a 3Dx contract, surely the
> opponents have at least a small slam. So -500 would
> be a very good result.
>
> If pard has 1 trick to offer, we are only -300 and
> they still probably have a small slam.
>
> If pard has enough to set them at 4H/S without
> any help from me, then with my 7 tricks and his
> 4, we can make 5D!!
>
> In fact, if this analysis is correct (usual disclaimer
> of my abilities here), not only is 3D safe, but even
> 4D is safe.  Am I missing something?

Only that sometimes partner's hand will take tricks on defence but won't
contribute to our own contract.


--
Gordon Rainsford
London

"Gordon Rainsford" <rgb@gordonrainsford.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1h6ugch.1yrtc3z16uel6kN%rgb@gordonrainsford.co.uk...
> NFord <nrfordcxnwsgrp@REMOVE_THIS_cardsharkgames.com> wrote:
>
>> Extending your thoughts --
>>
>> Given that this hand has no defense, if partner cannot
>> contribute a single trick to a 3Dx contract, surely the
>> opponents have at least a small slam. So -500 would
>> be a very good result.
>>
>> If pard has 1 trick to offer, we are only -300 and
>> they still probably have a small slam.
>>
>> If pard has enough to set them at 4H/S without
>> any help from me, then with my 7 tricks and his
>> 4, we can make 5D!!
>>
>> In fact, if this analysis is correct (usual disclaimer
>> of my abilities here), not only is 3D safe, but even
>> 4D is safe.  Am I missing something?
>
> Only that sometimes partner's hand will take tricks
> on defence but won't contribute to our own contract.

Understood, but I'm having trouble figuring what would
fill that bill when I have x-xx-KQJT9x-QJT9 and RHO
has opened 2C.   It would have to be something like
QJT of a major. And unless he has this in BOTH majors,
then they should still have a small slam if we are -500,  etc.

NFord <nrfordcxnwsgrp@REMOVE_THIS_cardsharkgames.com> wrote:

> "Gordon Rainsford" <rgb@gordonrainsford.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1h6ugch.1yrtc3z16uel6kN%rgb@gordonrainsford.co.uk...
> > NFord <nrfordcxnwsgrp@REMOVE_THIS_cardsharkgames.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Extending your thoughts --
> >>
> >> Given that this hand has no defense, if partner cannot
> >> contribute a single trick to a 3Dx contract, surely the
> >> opponents have at least a small slam. So -500 would
> >> be a very good result.
> >>
> >> If pard has 1 trick to offer, we are only -300 and
> >> they still probably have a small slam.
> >>
> >> If pard has enough to set them at 4H/S without
> >> any help from me, then with my 7 tricks and his
> >> 4, we can make 5D!!
> >>
> >> In fact, if this analysis is correct (usual disclaimer
> >> of my abilities here), not only is 3D safe, but even
> >> 4D is safe.  Am I missing something?
> >
> > Only that sometimes partner's hand will take tricks
> > on defence but won't contribute to our own contract.
>
> Understood, but I'm having trouble figuring what would
> fill that bill when I have x-xx-KQJT9x-QJT9 and RHO
> has opened 2C.   It would have to be something like
> QJT of a major.

QTx will often be enough.
Or KJx may take two tricks on defence but only one if we're playing the
contract.

> And unless he has this in BOTH majors,
> then they should still have a small slam if we are -500,  etc.

You had extended the argument to when partner has enough defence to set
them in 4M. There are many more holdings for partner where they can't
make ten tricks and we can't make eleveln.

However, I'm not really in severe disagreement with you, simply
answering your question.


--
Gordon Rainsford
London

"Gordon Rainsford" <rgb@gordonrainsford.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1h6wb86.1y6w5hy1m7dh0vN%rgb@gordonrainsford.co.uk...
> NFord <nrfordcxnwsgrp@REMOVE_THIS_cardsharkgames.com> wrote:
>
>> "Gordon Rainsford" <rgb@gordonrainsford.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1h6ugch.1yrtc3z16uel6kN%rgb@gordonrainsford.co.uk...
>> > NFord <nrfordcxnwsgrp@REMOVE_THIS_cardsharkgames.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Extending your thoughts --
>> >>
>> >> Given that this hand has no defense, if partner cannot
>> >> contribute a single trick to a 3Dx contract, surely the
>> >> opponents have at least a small slam. So -500 would
>> >> be a very good result.
>> >>
>> >> If pard has 1 trick to offer, we are only -300 and
>> >> they still probably have a small slam.
>> >>
>> >> If pard has enough to set them at 4H/S without
>> >> any help from me, then with my 7 tricks and his
>> >> 4, we can make 5D!!
>> >>
>> >> In fact, if this analysis is correct (usual disclaimer
>> >> of my abilities here), not only is 3D safe, but even
>> >> 4D is safe.  Am I missing something?
>> >
>> > Only that sometimes partner's hand will take tricks
>> > on defence but won't contribute to our own contract.
>>
>> Understood, but I'm having trouble figuring what would
>> fill that bill when I have x-xx-KQJT9x-QJT9 and RHO
>> has opened 2C.   It would have to be something like
>> QJT of a major.
>
> QTx will often be enough.
> Or KJx may take two tricks on defence but only one if we're playing the
> contract.

Again, those would have to be in the majors, and
with the 2C bidder sitting over them, I can't imagine
they would really take tricks on defense (given the
hand I had) unless declarer can't get to dummy to
finesse. Anyway, that was my basis for saying that if
pard can't contribute to offense on this deal, he can't
contribute to defense either.



>> And unless he has this in BOTH majors,
>> then they should still have a small slam if we are -500,  etc.
>
> You had extended the argument to when partner has enough defence to set
> them in 4M. There are many more holdings for partner where they can't
> make ten tricks and we can't make eleveln.
>
> However, I'm not really in severe disagreement with you, simply
> answering your question.
>
>
> --
> Gordon Rainsford
> London

"Robert Park" <bobpark56@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4396DFDA.1040001@earthlink.net...
>
>
> NFord wrote:
>> Had this at IMPs, unfavorable, with RHO opening 2C (strong):
>>
>> x-xx-KQJT9x-QJT9
>>
>> What would you venture?
>
>
> I bid 2S! My partners and I use this to show either spades or diamonds +
> clubs. If 2S gets doubled, I redouble to ask partner to pick one of the
> next 2 higher suits. If he bids clubs, I pass...unless clubs gets
> doubled -- in which case I run to 3D. Someplace along the way, something
> else is bound to happen.

...unless it goes 2C-2S-P-P and opener
has a Spade suit and, white-against-red,
decides to pass for penalties.

In our game, the bidding went 2C-4D-P-5D-5S
making 5. If they can take 10-11 tricks with
Spades as trumps, we are down 500-600
at 2S. Not a disaster at IMPs, but pretty bad
at MPs.

NFord wrote:
> Had this at IMPs, unfavorable, with RHO opening 2C (strong):
>
> x-xx-KQJT9x-QJT9
>
> What would you venture?


I bid 2S! My partners and I use this to show either spades or diamonds +
clubs. If 2S gets doubled, I redouble to ask partner to pick one of the
next 2 higher suits. If he bids clubs, I pass...unless clubs gets
doubled -- in which case I run to 3D. Someplace along the way, something
else is bound to happen.

Does anyone else use this kind of countermeasure, or something like it?
My partners and I find it effective...and opponents hate it.

   --Bob Park

NFord wrote:
> <ewleongusa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1133336725.510343.318490@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >> >> > NFord wrote:
> >> >> >> Had this at IMPs, unfavorable, with RHO opening 2C (strong):
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> x-xx-KQJT9x-QJT9
> <snip>
>
> > In 3Dx, you expect to take in you own hand five diamond tricks and two
> > club tricks for down two. Paying off 500 when your opponents can make
> > at least a not vulnerable game is hardly a major loss at imps.
> >
> > Eric Leong
>
> Extending your thoughts --
>
> Given that this hand has no defense,

No one gave that. Most likely this hand takes at least a trick in
defense.

Charles

NFord wrote:
> "Robert Park" <bobpark56@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:4396DFDA.1040001@earthlink.net...
>
>>
>>NFord wrote:
>>
>>>Had this at IMPs, unfavorable, with RHO opening 2C (strong):
>>>
>>>x-xx-KQJT9x-QJT9
>>>
>>>What would you venture?
>>
>>
>>I bid 2S! My partners and I use this to show either spades or diamonds +
>>clubs. If 2S gets doubled, I redouble to ask partner to pick one of the
>>next 2 higher suits. If he bids clubs, I pass...unless clubs gets
>>doubled -- in which case I run to 3D. Someplace along the way, something
>>else is bound to happen.
>
>
> ...unless it goes 2C-2S-P-P and opener
> has a Spade suit and, white-against-red,
> decides to pass for penalties.
>
> In our game, the bidding went 2C-4D-P-5D-5S
> making 5. If they can take 10-11 tricks with
> Spades as trumps, we are down 500-600
> at 2S. Not a disaster at IMPs, but pretty bad
> at MPs.


If avoiding the worst that can happen if a prime guideline for your
bidding, then I think you are missing too many opportunities.

While the scenario you describe could happen, it's likelihood is so low
that it's not worth worrying about. Opponents just don't act that
way...in practice, one or the other will act.  3 partners and I have
been using the methods I outlined for over a year, and we have yet to be
left to play in a short-suit bid.

FWIW, we use similar methods against strong 1C openings as well. Again,
we have yet to have a short suit overcall passed out. I'm sure it will
happen some day, but as you point out, our loss will not be great. In
the meantime, we chalk up our profits.

   --Bob Park