BBO Discussion Forums: Sense Check - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Sense Check

#1 User is offline   eagles123 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,831
  • Joined: 2011-June-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK Near London
  • Interests:Crystal Palace

Posted 2015-October-14, 12:49

so you're just casually playing a few hands vs GIB and you pick up 2nd in vul against not imps

-
AKQ5
-
AKJT97653


I just bid 7 clubs is this reasonable or should I be more scientific

full hand for those interested:

Spoiler

"definitely that's what I like to play when I'm playing standard - I want to be able to bid diamonds because bidding good suits is important in bridge" - Meckstroth's opinion on weak 2 diamond
0

#2 User is offline   wank 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,866
  • Joined: 2008-July-13

Posted 2015-October-14, 13:24

7c was fine. you have the gibbon too much credit in the play though
0

#3 User is offline   eagles123 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,831
  • Joined: 2011-June-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK Near London
  • Interests:Crystal Palace

Posted 2015-October-14, 13:40

yes i know i should play i just couldnt be bothered
"definitely that's what I like to play when I'm playing standard - I want to be able to bid diamonds because bidding good suits is important in bridge" - Meckstroth's opinion on weak 2 diamond
0

#4 User is offline   1eyedjack 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,575
  • Joined: 2004-March-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 2015-October-14, 13:54

Scientific does you no good. You should be less concerned about whether you can increase the confidence of your making 7C before committing to it than you should be about whether you succeed in buying it there. 7D or 7S are both good sacrifices against a Club part-score.
Psych (pron. saik): A gross and deliberate misstatement of honour strength and/or suit length. Expressly permitted under Law 73E but forbidden contrary to that law by Acol club tourneys.

Psyche (pron. sahy-kee): The human soul, spirit or mind (derived, personification thereof, beloved of Eros, Greek myth).
Masterminding (pron. mPosted ImagesPosted ImagetPosted Imager-mPosted ImagendPosted Imageing) tr. v. - Any bid made by bridge player with which partner disagrees.

"Gentlemen, when the barrage lifts." 9th battalion, King's own Yorkshire light infantry,
2000 years earlier: "morituri te salutant"

"I will be with you, whatever". Blair to Bush, precursor to invasion of Iraq
1

#5 User is offline   billw55 

  • enigmatic
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,757
  • Joined: 2009-July-31
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-October-14, 14:11

Agree 7. Using a slower sequence, what information could you possibly extract from partner that will make a difference? Meanwhile ops can get organized in the pointy suits.

Also, stop playing goulash Posted Image
Life is long and beautiful, if bad things happen, good things will follow.
-gwnn
0

#6 User is offline   apollo1201 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,130
  • Joined: 2014-June-01

Posted 2015-October-15, 13:13

On the contrary, isn't there the risk that a direct 7C will push opponents to save, thinking he wouldn't bid 7C if he didn't count 13 tricks by his own? While a slow approach could suggest you are saving against their cold 6S.
It reminds me of a top I had following a bidding "accident". Vul vs. NV, I open 1S, LHO passes, partner splinters 4C in my Axx, and RHO bids 5D. I place 5S (while I ment 6), all pass, 680 and a complete top. LHO did not fit his partner (he hold some crap with singleton S and Qxxx D) fearing we would bid and make 6 on 6D. But the save in 7D was only 500 (he was ok to lose 800 vs. 1430 but even more ok to lose 680 only). There were plenty of 300 and 500 in our column...
All this to say that I'm not so sure a direct 7C will work. But with goulash hands everything is a bit random...
0

#7 User is offline   gszes 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,660
  • Joined: 2011-February-12

Posted 2015-October-16, 12:26

While I admit I would hate to be in 7c and not give our side a chance to find 7h the vulnerability just makes the slow exploration path way too easy for the opps. 7c seems like a very reasonable opening bid. Commander Pawle wrote some logic problems in card play. The downside of working on them was that no sane declarer would ever play the hand in a fashion required to solve his problems thus reducing them to more of a curiosity than anything practical. Same with goulash Just a thought.
0

#8 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,519
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-October-17, 11:03

The risk of bidding slowly isn't that RHO and LHO GIB might find a save - the risk is that CHO opponent might bid 7N for no reason other than having 12 hcp.
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
0

#9 User is offline   jdonn 

  • - - T98765432 AQT8
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,085
  • Joined: 2005-June-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 2015-October-18, 12:04

7 is quite reasonable!
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
0

#10 User is offline   kuhchung 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 729
  • Joined: 2010-August-03

Posted 2015-October-19, 14:56

Hey, it reminds me of my thread. Now it goes 7S by the opps, and your partner will double with 0 aces, pass to show 1, or bid 7N with both :)
Videos of the worst bridge player ever playing bridge:
https://www.youtube....hungPlaysBridge
0

Page 1 of 1
  • 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