BBO Discussion Forums: partner surprises you - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

partner surprises you

#21 User is offline   dicklont 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 750
  • Joined: 2007-October-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Interests:Bridge, music, sports

Posted 2008-June-16, 14:06

3♠, partner having shown a weak hand so foar wil know what to do.
For 3♥ I would need a much stronger hand.
--
Finding your own mistakes is more productive than looking for partner's. It improves your game and is good for your soul. (Nige1)
0

#22 User is offline   gwnn 

  • Csaba the Hutt
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,027
  • Joined: 2006-June-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:bye

Posted 2008-June-16, 15:10

at least we didn't miss slam.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
      George Carlin
0

#23 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,128
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2008-June-16, 19:17

xcurt, on Jun 15 2008, 09:53 PM, said:

Anyone slamming with this should go read this thread.  Over there in almost the identical auction the other hand has Q222, Txx, Q, AT9xx and people are split between 2S and 3S.  I'd almost say that the linked thread contains the facing hand for this, but the scoring is different and there advancer is an unpassed hand.  That facing hand makes me think that 3S is plenty here; if partner remotely close to good as that hand he will accept and we don't have much play facing less.

I confess, I started to quote the same thread :) but discovered that the hand therein
♠Qxxx ♥Txx ♦Q ♣ATxxx would rather undermine the slam-try argument :)
There do exist seemingly weaker hands that would make slam a reasonable proposition. For instance
♠AQxx ♥ xxx ♦ Qxx ♣ xxx
Admittedly, hands can usually be concocted to support doubtful Bridge arguments :(.

It might be more pertinent to run a simulation (in the given context) of hands in the range 0-9 HCP with 8-12 losers and 4+ ♠ (to include hands like those above on which, apparently, many experts bid 2♠).
Guthrie.tech
0
  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users