Partner has shown 17-19 balanced without 4 hearts. Do you invite?
So many tens...
#1
Posted 2014-October-02, 14:41
Partner has shown 17-19 balanced without 4 hearts. Do you invite?
-- Bertrand Russell
#2
Posted 2014-October-02, 15:30
IMPS invite
Have no strong dislike of invite at MP but it
may be a tad too optimistic. Someday we will ask what
2n (v 1N) would have meant:)
#3
Posted 2014-October-02, 15:49
gszes, on 2014-October-02, 15:30, said:
3 hearts and 6 clubs.
-- Bertrand Russell
#4
Posted 2014-October-02, 16:00
"Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself."
"One advantage of bad bidding is that you get practice at playing atrocious contracts."
-Alfred Sheinwold
#5
Posted 2014-October-02, 16:22
#6
Posted 2014-October-02, 16:31
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
#7
Posted 2014-October-02, 17:04
jogs, on 2014-October-02, 16:22, said:
Well... probably not a huge surprise, given that I responded to 1♣. I do explain 1♦ as "3+ points, 4+ hearts" since by agreement it could be QJ9xx in hearts and out, but that is the exception, not the rule.
-- Bertrand Russell
#9
Posted 2014-October-02, 21:49
mgoetze, on 2014-October-02, 17:04, said:
What do you bid with 3=3=5=2 and about 3 or 4 points?
#11
Posted 2014-October-03, 04:33
jogs, on 2014-October-02, 21:49, said:
Uhm... pass? Doesn't everyone?
-- Bertrand Russell
#12
Posted 2014-October-03, 09:46
At imps, the game bonus, even nv, makes it worth while, tho it is close nv.
At mps, the key to me is that I would expect that on more than half the hands the field will have bid 1♣ 1♥ 2N
I can't imagine anyone passing 2N, showing 18-19, with 6 hcp and those 10's.
So passing 1N rates to be an anti-field action most of the time. I'd rather be in the field contract with my partner on play than not....actually, it doesn't really matter how good my partner is...if she is better than the field, we need to be in the field contract and if she isn't, then she needs the practice.
Now, 17 is more common than 18 which in turn is more common than 19, but 17 isn't as common as the combination. This means that passing will sometimes be the field action but usually won't.
Plus even if she has 17, so we are in 2N rather than 1. The odds are that we'll make 2N anyway. Heck, this is the type of hand on which 9 tricks roll in if the cards are friendly and partner has 17.
#13
Posted 2014-October-03, 10:28
mgoetze, on 2014-October-02, 14:41, said:
#15
Posted 2014-October-03, 11:47
jogs, on 2014-October-03, 11:21, said:
transfer walsh (usually) uses 1♠ for hands with long diamonds. Many (all?) use it for some notrump type hands that don't fit in the parameters for immediate notrump responses. Thus in the t-walsh style I play, as an example, 1N shows 8-10, 2N shows a good 12+-14, so we need 1♠ for diamonds, and notrump hands with 5-7 or 11-bad 12. Others may have differing approaches of course. There is no such thing as standard t-walsh anymore than there is a standard 2/1.
#16
Posted 2014-October-03, 12:08
jogs, on 2014-October-03, 11:21, said:
I have no bid for that so I pass, though as Mike said I expect many will bid 1♠.
I really don't see how this is advancing your argument that I have a "surprise" for the opponents if they decide to balance.
-- Bertrand Russell
#18
Posted 2014-October-03, 17:03
If partner has 18 or 19 I expect 3NT makes more often than not. (DealMaster makes game 62%)
If partner has 17 I would expect 3NT to go down more often than not. (DealMaster down 70%)
#19
Posted 2014-October-03, 20:48
jogs, on 2014-October-03, 13:21, said:
1♣ wasn't forcing....1♦ was explained as hearts...this is part of what is often described as transfer walsh (t-walsh)
#20
Posted 2014-October-03, 20:48
mgoetze, on 2014-October-03, 12:08, said:
I really don't see how this is advancing your argument that I have a "surprise" for the opponents if they decide to balance.
you can't play a method where 1♣ could be 19 hcp and pass any 6 count...not if you want to win