Weak twos continued

August 12, 2009 at 12:04 pm 7 comments

Bd 6
Dlr East
Vul EW

NORTH

s3
h1109765
d1AK932
cA3

WEST

sK54
h1AKQ
d1QJ1085
c87

EAST

sAJ9872
h1 J4
d176
cQ54

SOUTH

sQ106
h1832
d14
cKJ10962

West……North…..East…..South
Chua………………Beckett
……………………2S……..Pass
4S………Dble……Pass……5C
Dble……All Pass

+500. In the other room South opened 3C and bought it there for one down, -50.

Bd 18
Dlr East
Vul NS

NORTH

s1082
h1K93
d1AQJ3
cQ106

WEST

sK6
h1QJ84
d196542
c75

EAST

sAQJ97
h1763
d1K
c9432

SOUTH

s543
h1A102
d11087
cAKJ8

West……..North…….East…….South
………………………..2S………Pass
4S………..All Pass

-200. In the other room, South got to open 1C and after East got into the auction with his spade suit, NS discreetly subsided in 3C making +110

3 IMPs out…so that’s what you get for being a smart arse….

See you tomorrow.

Advertisements

Entry filed under: Cayne matches.

What would you do with these? Staying ahead in the game

7 Comments Add your own

  • 1. sartaj  |  August 12, 2009 at 8:23 pm

    In an alternate universe, South looked at the vulnerability, looked at his trump trick, looked at his Australian opponents and elected to pass 4S doubled.

    Defence went DA, DK, D2 overruffed; CK CA; D and South, patting himself on the back, claimed down 4. Plus 1100 on a nothinig hand.

    The Australian post-mortem obviously focussed on how unlucky the result was. How lucky South was for his pass, how unlucky the red-suit layouts were. How such pressure bidding is winning bridge in the long run…..

    The Australian analyst also ignored how the (hypothetical) Italian East and the (hypothetical) American East and the (hypothetical) French East passed as dealer at unfavourable.

    Reply
    • 2. sartaj  |  August 12, 2009 at 8:30 pm

      In yet another alternate universe, (based on the result at the other table), the Italian/American/French east west defended 3C down 1. for +50.

      The Australian East missorted his hand and passed as dealer. The Italian/American/French South was tempted by the vulnerability but let being in second seat and holding 3-3 in the majors dissuade him and chose to pass.
      West opened a strong NT and E-W played 4S down 4 vulnerable.

      The Australian postmortem had another 10 imps to account for. But instead of going into it in any detail, they adjourned to the pub to discuss more important things than accountability and responsibility.

      Reply
    • 3. cathychua  |  August 13, 2009 at 6:38 am

      But Sartaj, on hand one we got a great result, did we not, with a 3C preempt ‘Australian style’ in one room rejected in the other….which leads you to comment – ??

      Reply
      • 4. Richard  |  August 13, 2009 at 11:57 pm

        I think rather than focussing on the score, it’s more productive to consider what the bids were meant to achieve and ask whether they succeeded. I don’t understand jumping to 4S, because I think that 4S is unlikely to be a good contract and “hoping the opponents are provoked into bidding something and going down” isn’t a good enough reason to make the bid. That turned out to be what happened, but I think you were a bit lucky (which I suppose is Sartaj’s point). Maybe you were reading the opponents’ style, and felt the chances of them bidding were relatively high?

        Reply
  • 5. phil markey  |  August 12, 2009 at 12:23 pm

    opening 2 spades is a bit of a crime on the second hand – i suppose it depends on your pre-empting style but in my world at these colours given what i am prepared to open with a pre-empt in spades i open 1 spade

    with the west cards on the second hand i think 4 spades is too much – a bit like pre-empting 5 of a minor – you dont give good opponents who have a making game much option but to hit you when really you want to be giving them some awkward options – on this hand if the other guys had the king of diamonds that your pard shouldnt have then 4 spades is likely going to be a disaster

    Reply
    • 6. cathychua  |  August 12, 2009 at 3:14 pm

      I wonder if there is any call for a 4S bid if 2S is guaranteed to be six. On the other hand, if it was only five, then they had to be no worse than they were. In that case I don’t quite understand how they get to penalise 4S….if one of them doubles, won’t the other one ‘have’ to bid, with nothing in spades?

      Reply
      • 7. phil markey  |  August 12, 2009 at 4:24 pm

        my rule of thumb is if i have a strong no-trump i am taking a bid – if either the north or south hand was the king of diamonds extra i would double the raise to 4 spades – whilst double is takeout its just natural to say its less takeout than if i takeout double a 1 spade opening and i could bid 4nt with something seriously shapely

        with either the north or south hands i pass a takeout double – rumour is the 5 level sucks

        but i agree that having all the big cards in the suit your pre-empting is commonly good protection – significantly less so against strong players though

        i like 3 spades – definately you want to tell pard that spades are good and the other guys wont like it – they will figure there isnt a heap of imps in doubling it so they are left selling to a dodgy contract or guessing what there best contract is with hardly any room to know strain or level

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


August 2009
M T W T F S S
« Jul   Sep »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 11 other followers


%d bloggers like this: