Another undiscussed auction How would you interpret it?
#1
Posted 2012-March-01, 08:50
(1♦) - Dbl. - (1♠) - 3♣
Without having discussed this auction with your partner (this is the first time you've played together), how would you interpret partner's 3♣ bid?
Put another way, what do you believe is the "standard" interpretation of 3♣ in this auction?
"If you're driving [the Honda S2000] with the top up, the storm outside had better have a name."
Simplify the complicated side; don't complify the simplicated side.
#2
Posted 2012-March-01, 08:55
ahydra
#3
Posted 2012-March-01, 08:55
The mediocre part: How long most often 5-6 clubs.
The difficult part: How strong: I have no idea, I would take it as a good suit and will not care about HCPS too much. I guess in about 90 % of the cases where everybody bids, you will not have a game bound on HCPS. Maybe you have a game based on shape, so shape showing bids should be the key, not strength showing bids.
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#4
Posted 2012-March-01, 08:57
Codo, on 2012-March-01, 08:55, said:
I should be taking notes, shouldn't I?
"If you're driving [the Honda S2000] with the top up, the storm outside had better have a name."
Simplify the complicated side; don't complify the simplicated side.
#5
Posted 2012-March-01, 09:37
S2000magic, on 2012-March-01, 08:57, said:
Luckily it's all typed out for you
Sadly, I wasn't going to be able to give a much better answer than Codo. I would expect it to show good constructive to limit values--something like 8+ to 12 HCP ish, but I don't know what's "standard".
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
#6
Posted 2012-March-01, 09:41
BunnyGo, on 2012-March-01, 09:37, said:
If 3♣ shows this, what would 2♣ show?
"If you're driving [the Honda S2000] with the top up, the storm outside had better have a name."
Simplify the complicated side; don't complify the simplicated side.
#7
Posted 2012-March-01, 09:45
With kind regards
Marlowe
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
#8
Posted 2012-March-01, 09:46
S2000magic, on 2012-March-01, 09:41, said:
Clubs, Competitive values.
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
#9
Posted 2012-March-01, 10:50
ahydra
#10
Posted 2012-March-01, 11:08
S2000magic, on 2012-March-01, 09:41, said:
What Marlow said. Competitive vs Inv. values roughly (5- bad 8) and (good 8-12)
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
#11
Posted 2012-March-01, 11:17
BunnyGo, on 2012-March-01, 11:08, said:
How about a double, or either cue bid (2♦ or 2♠)?
As you can see, I'm trying to narrow it down to it-can't-mean-that-because-this-other-action-would-mean-that.
Thanks for all the good posts, by the way!
"If you're driving [the Honda S2000] with the top up, the storm outside had better have a name."
Simplify the complicated side; don't complify the simplicated side.
#12
Posted 2012-March-01, 11:24
S2000magic, on 2012-March-01, 11:17, said:
As you can see, I'm trying to narrow it down to it-can't-mean-that-because-this-other-action-would-mean-that.
Thanks for all the good posts, by the way!
double would show a spade suit. Otherwise you can expect your opponents to psyche 1♠ on you every time.
Cuebidding shows more points and at least one rounded suit (potentially both).
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
#13
Posted 2012-March-01, 12:12
BunnyGo, on 2012-March-01, 11:24, said:
Both 2♦ and 2♠ show this? Seems wasteful.
"If you're driving [the Honda S2000] with the top up, the storm outside had better have a name."
Simplify the complicated side; don't complify the simplicated side.
#14
Posted 2012-March-01, 12:40
S2000magic, on 2012-March-01, 12:12, said:
Probably is, I'd be interested myself to hear what the difference is. I don't know what its standard meaning is.
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
#15
Posted 2012-March-01, 12:41
♠ AQxx
♥ Q10xxx
♦ Ax
♣ xx
#16
Posted 2012-March-01, 13:14
#17
Posted 2012-March-01, 13:16
I think 3C is much the same as without the 1S bid, although slightly better. The suggested xxx AQx x KJ10xxx is too good for 3C (also it has a singleton diamond which is very unlikely). With, say, x AQx xxx KJ10xxx, if I had to guess a contract it would be 5C. If partner has the magic ace of spades he doesn't much else in his takeout double (Axxx Kxxx x Axxx makes 6C easily)
I don't think 2C has to have 5 clubs - with xx Kxx xxxx KQ10x want to bid my club suit.
#18
Posted 2012-March-01, 13:17
2S is natural with 5 spades or a real good 4.
2D is your available cuebid. Partner showed the other 3 suits, so we should have the ability to bid them naturally here.
edit: @ posts 12-14
"...we live off being battle-scarred veterans who manage to hate our opponents slightly more than we hate each other. -- Hamman, re: Wolff
#19
Posted 2012-March-01, 16:46
That's what I'm playing it for and we'll find out if it was invitational to a game or a dive after the fact.
What is baby oil made of?
#20
Posted 2012-March-01, 17:16
S2000magic, on 2012-March-01, 08:50, said:
(1♦) - Dbl. - (1♠) - 3♣
Without having discussed this auction with your partner (this is the first time you've played together), how would you interpret partner's 3♣ bid?
Put another way, what do you believe is the "standard" interpretation of 3♣ in this auction?
x...xxx....Axx....AQxxxx