[Cascade]

---

IMPs

Well do you raise?

[hotShot]

No.



Edited because I misread auction....

This post has been edited by hotShot: 2010-October-25, 06:09

[mfa1010]

I read the problem as if it is partner's 4♣ we are supposed to consider raising, and no, I wouldn't do so. Even consider it, that is. If partner has a huge monster, this is not the way to show that.

[Fluffy]

hotshot you better have a relook at the bidding

We might go down in 4♣ or we might make slam, maybe raising to 6♣ is a good strategic idea who knows? , but I'd just bid 5♣.

[phil_20686]

Fluffy, on 2010-October-25, 05:42, said:

hotshot you better have a relook at the bidding

We might go down in 4♣ or we might make slam, maybe raising to 6♣ is a good strategic idea who knows? , but I'd just bid 5♣.

Seriously?

I figure if partner had ten playing tricks in his hand he might have started with a dble rather than 2c. You have enough that he might have play for 4c on a good day.

[Fluffy]

Ok, Ill explain my reasoning a bit firther

partner is void in spades
partner is not interested on playing hearts

♦A109xx is more than 1 trick, in fact I think it might be worth 3 extra tricks.

[pooltuna]

turn the Q♠->Q♥ and I might raise but I only have 1 potential trick and need 2

[pooltuna]

mfa1010, on 2010-October-25, 05:40, said:

I read the problem as if it is partner's 4♣ we are supposed to consider raising, and no, I wouldn't do so. Even consider it, that is. If partner has a huge monster, this is not the way to show that.

Why not? Considering the colors and the scoring partner better have 9 near certain tricks in his hand!

[Cascade]

mfa1010, on 2010-October-25, 05:40, said:

I read the problem as if it is partner's 4♣ we are supposed to consider raising, and no, I wouldn't do so. Even consider it, that is. If partner has a huge monster, this is not the way to show that.

How would you show a huge monster? and give me an example of such a monster?

I think 4♣ vul versus not opposite a passing partner shows something of a monster but perhaps we have different ideas about what a monster is.

[OleBerg]

No.

It might of course be right occasionally, but partner should be allowed to compete (even at these colours) without getting dragged to 5♣.

[pooltuna]

OleBerg, on 2010-October-25, 14:16, said:

No.

It might of course be right occasionally, but partner should be allowed to compete (even at these colours) without getting dragged to 5♣.

Likewise he shouldn't drag you at these colors to a 4 level contract where you feel like you just dialed Pennsylvania 6 five thousand.

[mtvesuvius]

I raise. This would be a harder decision at MPs, where partner may be feeling matchpoint-greedy, however at IMPs, partner better have their R/W 4♣ bid... Which should not just be competing. Seems to me that partner is something like - Kx QJxx AKQxxxx or something similar. I will apologize to partner if he does not have his bid

[Cascade]

mtvesuvius, on 2010-October-25, 15:36, said:

I raise. This would be a harder decision at MPs, where partner may be feeling matchpoint-greedy, however at IMPs, partner better have their R/W 4♣ bid... Which should not just be competing. Seems to me that partner is something like - Kx QJxx AKQxxxx or something similar. I will apologize to partner if he does not have his bid

"Sorry its my fault ...

... I chose to play with you."

[awm]

I'm not sure why partner can't have something like ♠- ♥AKx ♦xx ♣KQJxxxxx or ♠x ♥AKx ♦Kx ♣AQJxxxx. Neither of these offers a whole lot of play for 5♣. Even a hand with a side diamond fit like ♠- ♥Axx ♦KQx ♣KQJxxxx fails in 5♣ if opponents find the right lead or if diamonds break badly offside.

I don't think it's 100% that partner has a spade void on this auction (opponents might bid this way if opener is 5/5 or 5440 or the like). It seems unlikely to me that partner has solid clubs (he might've tried 3♠ over 1♠ with such a hand). Putting these together, I wouldn't raise to game. Partner could've doubled and then bid to show a stronger hand.

[Cascade]

awm, on 2010-October-25, 15:50, said:

Partner could've doubled and then bid to show a stronger hand.

What is the most extreme shape that you would double and bid with?

What is the most extreme hand that you would start with a simple 2♣ overcall?

[awm]

On this particular hand, if partner really has 0337 or 0247 or 0(23)8 shape, then doubling actually seems reasonably good. First off, he actually does have (sort-of) support for the unbid suits; it's not like we will hang him by bidding his singleton or void. Second, he has so many clubs that he can more or less correct to clubs at any level. The difficult patterns for doubling are usually ones where he's very short in the unbid major (like 4126 for example).

[Cascade]

awm, on 2010-October-25, 16:27, said:

On this particular hand, if partner really has 0337 or 0247 or 0(23)8 shape, then doubling actually seems reasonably good. First off, he actually does have (sort-of) support for the unbid suits; it's not like we will hang him by bidding his singleton or void. Second, he has so many clubs that he can more or less correct to clubs at any level. The difficult patterns for doubling are usually ones where he's very short in the unbid major (like 4126 for example).

Agree.

So 2=1=3=7 1=1=4=7 or something more extreme might bid this way?

[dake50]

No, I want a piece of 4S if they try that.

[mtvesuvius]

dake50, on 2010-October-25, 19:42, said:

No, I want a piece of 4S if they try that.

LOL

[mikeh]

While all the bidders are looking at their hand and, in essence, arguing that they have unexpected values, I am more accustomed to players who listen to the opps make a single raise and a, presumably, preemptive re-raise and reason that their partner has more than zero hcp.

Thus, while partner is not an idiot, and thus doesn't expect to go down more than 1 in 4♣ if he catches an unsuitable dummy, I don't think he has to have 10 tricks or even 9 sure tricks in his hand. he is entitled to play us for a modicum of strength, and he can legitimately hope for more than a stiff club (altho it is the 10).

I expect to make 4♣. I won't be surprised if we make 5, but I would consider it to be against the odds, and so would let him play in the partscore.

I also think that raising smacks of hanging partner.....if he is, as I hope, a good player who has taken a calculated risk in order to not sell out to -140, I would hate to turn his good call into a minus and boot the 7 imps he'd won for us (and maybe losing an additional couple when they double, which they are far more apt to do at game than at a partscore). That wouldn't bother me if I felt 11 tricks were 40% or better, but I don't.

Now, if partner is not the type of player I assume: especially if he is the type who needs ALL his values to bid, I'd raise...but I don't play with that type.