[whereagles]

Strong teams match, your team trailing 12 imps with about 10 hands to go.

NV vs V you hold

♠ 2
♥ --
♦ QJ32
♣ KQ987542

RHO you
1♦ ...??

1♦ = natural, 3+ cards. Club bids by you are natural.

[wank]

4

[Lord Molyb]

4

[PhantomSac]

I would bid 5 if RHO had opened 1M (esp 1H) at this vul, but over 1D 4 seems right. Obviously 5 could just be a bink if LHO has a 5M bid but there's too much possibility we force them to double and nothing makes for them with everything splitting badly. I am hoping for 4M double from partner or X p 4M p p X from partner . It also really hurts our offensive potential that RHO opened 1D.

Def feels weird to bid 4 though since I would do it on much worse hands at these colors.

[neilkaz]

Another vote for 4♣

[billw55]

I am massively tilting right now so 6♣.

[gszes]

pass

The opps are very unlikely to exchange much information after a 1d opening and there
appears to be no need to rush in when we might just as easily be preempting partner
as the opps. If the situation seems warranted I can jump in with clubs later when the
risk vs reward seems clearer.

[the hog]

4C also.

[whereagles]

Thx all. The hand was from the 1997 Bermuda Bowl final USA vs France.


When I showed it to a friend he said: "hmmm... with me having 4 cards in opener's suit, partner is bound to be loaded in the majors. 4♣ should best." Right he was, as the full hand was

---

Rodwell tried 5♣ and got doubled for -300. Chemla opted by a more conservative 4♣ and saw it go

1♦ 4♣ dbl pass
4♦ (all pass)

for down FIVE (-500). +12 to France, which went on to win the title.

An example that top players can tilt as well. I don't think Rodwell would have bid 5♣ under more normal match circumstances. Kudos to all that managed to keep their cool

[PhantomSac]

On what basis have you determined that Rodwell tilted?

[MrAce]

PhantomSac, on 2014-September-06, 13:47, said:

On what basis have you determined that Rodwell tilted?

Whereagles is like a P-90 sub machine gun. Instead of bullets he shoots similar silly comments such as this one about Rodwell. Do not expect basis of his comments. I doubt he has one. He has other gems besides psychoanalyzing Rodwell. If this was BW, I would be his #1 follower.

[Jinksy]

MrAce, on 2014-September-06, 14:33, said:

Whereagles is like a P-90 sub machine gun. Instead of bullets he shoots similar silly comments such as this one about Rodwell. Do not expect basis of his comments. I doubt he has one. He has other gems besides psychoanalyzing Rodwell. If this was BW, I would be his #1 follower.

Were you always this caustic, or do you just feel bound to the law of total trolling since the Hog calmed down?

[whereagles]

PhantomSac, on 2014-September-06, 13:47, said:

On what basis have you determined that Rodwell tilted?

Well, maybe tilt (in the sense of going nuts until going broke) is too much. He only pushed it on this hand.

[MrAce]

Jinksy, on 2014-September-06, 14:42, said:

Were you always this caustic, or do you just feel bound to the law of total trolling since the Hog calmed down?

On one hand I want to explain you, on the other I don't want to because I want you to remain clueless.
You can hardly call one a troll or caustic when he had to deal with 13.000+ posts similar to this and the link provided below.

I don't know why he feels like he should reply each and every ***** single topic. Maybe he genuinely wants to contribute or maybe he believes the number of posts is an achievement. And he is allowed to do so regardless of which one. But in a bridge forum, if one contributes to that many posts, and constantly ignores OP or the replies and/or says cheesy stuff as he did on this topic, you can hardly blame anyone for reacting to it. The dude is on a spree. As we are discussing this, he just could not help it and did it again !
|
|
|
\/
http://www.bridgebas...8-elegant-hand/

[the hog]

Jinksy, on 2014-September-06, 14:42, said:

Were you always this caustic, or do you just feel bound to the law of total trolling since the Hog calmed down?

That's Mr Hog to you. I only stopped calling you out because most of your comments have been sensible recently. (Apart from your question as to whether you would run if you mad a questionnable double.)

[Siegmund]

I would have bid 5C without a second thought. Interesting thread highlighting bad-breaks-in-both-majors as a reason not to push so hard.

[Zelandakh]

Were E-W playing the same system in both rooms? The reason for only bidding 4 rather than 5 is partly based around the expectation of diamond length by Opener but that might be less apparent if 1♦ was part of a strong club system.

[the_clown]

I would bid 5♣. Its fav and they have the majors. Its likely they will lead a diamond which will probably help me get an extra trick.

[whereagles]

Siegmund, on 2014-September-07, 20:51, said:

I would have bid 5C without a second thought. Interesting thread highlighting bad-breaks-in-both-majors as a reason not to push so hard.

That is the point. Hands with long suit + length in opponents' suit should tread warily, as there is a high chance partner will have the opposite two-suiter.

Zelandakh, on 2014-September-08, 06:16, said:

Were E-W playing the same system in both rooms? The reason for only bidding 4 rather than 5 is partly based around the expectation of diamond length by Opener but that might be less apparent if 1♦ was part of a strong club system.

1♦ was natural 3+ in both rooms, yes.