Re: invitation opposite support double
- From: hoffman@xxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:24:39 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 17, 6:12 am, wheaties <dwheat1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 16, 9:57 pm, quadra...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
Matchpoints, both vul:
The auction:
West North East South
1C pass 1H 1S
dbl* 2S ?
*3-card support for hearts
East holds:
S 7
H J8642
D AQJ
C Q984
Your call as East?
Howard
quadra...@xxxxxxxx
Double fit? I suppose. Switch my minors and I'd feel a whole lot
more comfortable about treating this as a double fit (which should
imply not just length but at least some strength in the double-fit
suits as opposed to a 3 count). Even then, with a known tap about to
start, and only an eight card fit, I am a lot less sanguine about my
chances in 4H than other posters. Add to that the form of scoring
where stretching to bid thin games does not pay and colour me yellow.
Still, since the form of scoring does justify competing for the part-
score and I have (barely) invitational values, I will make one try.
And since I do not want to test bidding agreements in the middle of an
auction, I will not bid 3C which I would not consider forcing
(especially playing support doubles where responder could easily be
2=4=2=5 or 2=4=3=4). 3H should be merely competitive (about what the
hand is worth) but would usually deliver an extra heart. 4H is too
rich in my view. I would bid 3D which has the advantage of showing my
values and, perhaps more importantly, suggesting the lead I would most
like against 3S. As for forcing passes, none of the bids suggested by
the poster who raised that question would in my opinion lead to
forcing passes anyway. To establish forcing passes, responder would
need first to unambiguously establish a game force (by bidding 3S for
example). I am firmly in the camp that believes that vulnerability
has little to do with forcing passes and that bidding a game in a
competitive auction does not mean the hand belongs to your side simply
because you happen to be red; forcing passes can never be "on" if it
is not crystal clear to whom the hand "belongs" (not in a "par"
meaning but from a tricks/power point of view.) This hand does not
meet the standard. Yes we outgun them by at least 3 HCP but that edge
is not enough to assume forcing passes are in effect. And from a total
tricks point of view, they may outgun us if their spade fit is 9 cards
long and our longest fit (in clubs) is only 8 cards.
1 such example:
Jxxx
ATxx
xxx
xx
xxx 7
KQx J8642
xxx AQJ
AKxx Q984
AKQxx
9
KTxx
Jxx
Only one hand, I realize, which may prove nothing other than that
there are many, many hands where just because we opened and have the
balance of HCP, the hand does not belong to us.
Cheers,
David W.
Regarding the following statement (excerpted from the posting)...
I would bid 3D which has the advantage of showing my
values and, perhaps more importantly, suggesting the lead I would
most
like against 3S.
3D clearly is an invite, but I do not see how it can be expected to
show any values in diamonds when the only available invites in common
methods are 2NT and 3D.
My choice on this hand is to invite due to several somewhat
interconnected concerns.
1. The AQJ tight diamond holding probably is worth even less than
expected because partner often has only 1 or 2 cards in the suit on
this bidding.
2. The trump honors are weak, and the suit could play very poorly if
partner's three card holding does not include the Ace.
3. Most of the possible spade honor holdings in partner's hand are
wasted on offense.
John Hoffman
hoffman on OKbridge, tivohoff on BridgeBase
.
- References:
- invitation opposite support double
- From: quadratic
- Re: invitation opposite support double
- From: wheaties
- invitation opposite support double
- Prev by Date: Re: Improve the game of bridge - Eliminate “Notrump”
- Next by Date: Re: Improve the game of bridge - Eliminate “Notrump”
- Previous by thread: Re: invitation opposite support double
- Next by thread: Re: invitation opposite support double
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
