mentor/mentee disagreement what is the right way to bid this hand
#3
Posted 2013-May-22, 09:56
#4
Posted 2013-May-22, 10:04
gszes, on 2013-May-22, 09:36, said:
T8
K86543
85
KT8
AQ63
A7
A43
J642
South opens 1n how should the bidding proceed??????
Red at IMPs I am going to stretch and invite game with the North hand
I suspect that I would fall in love with my Aces with the South hand and accept the invite...
1N - 2♦
2♥ - 3♥
4♥
#7
Posted 2013-May-22, 11:06
TylerE, on 2013-May-22, 11:03, said:
i love aggression, but this seems a bit much for me. Invite seems to be aggressive enough.
i think u should have an agreement with partner in these situations, is the inviter going to be aggressive in these situations, or the acceptor? Want to avoid both being aggro.
#8
Posted 2013-May-22, 11:11
gszes, on 2013-May-22, 09:36, said:
South opens 1n no interference how should n approach the bidding?
4♥ may make or be a sacrifice against ops' partscore/game.
#9
Posted 2013-May-22, 11:52
dustinst22, on 2013-May-22, 11:06, said:
i think u should have an agreement with partner in these situations, is the inviter going to be aggressive in these situations, or the acceptor? Want to avoid both being aggro.
The only thing you invite red at IMPs is slam... (not totally serious, but close to it...)
#10
Posted 2013-May-22, 11:54
TylerE, on 2013-May-22, 11:52, said:
Or your invitational range just gets lowered.....
The whole "just bid game and hope because we're red" isnt really a good approach.
Avoiding bad games is important imo, especially in long matches. These are the type of IMPS that go unnoticed, but are important. 6 imp swings add up.
#11
Posted 2013-May-22, 12:15
Equally, I've gotten good results passing with very marginal invites. That's the other side of the coin. Basically at IMPs, especially vuln, you really don't want to be at Game-1. +110 vs -100 is a 5 imp swing.
#12
Posted 2013-May-22, 12:17
TylerE, on 2013-May-22, 12:15, said:
This is a given....but I'm talking about bidding reckless games that aren't even close to that just because of vulnerability. Game -1, means 140 vs -100....so 6 imp swing
#14
Posted 2013-May-22, 12:26
dustinst22, on 2013-May-22, 12:17, said:
I don't think a 6322 with two kings vs a strong NT is reckless in any way. Aggressive sure, but well below suicidal.
#15
Posted 2013-May-22, 12:31
#17
Posted 2013-May-22, 14:05
https://www.youtube....hungPlaysBridge
#18
Posted 2013-May-22, 14:16
The issue is whether 2♥ is going to a) make game; b) not make game; or c) going to go -110 or -140 when they find their fit. We have 21-23 combined; all they need is a fit to bid (and they can double 2♦ for diamonds, bid 2♥ for takeout, or bid 2♠ with decent spades). If I Texas, I don't intend to make it (but I won't be too surprised if I do); I intend to go down 1 and push -110 or -140. The vig is "it might make", and "it might need perfect defence, with the key hand closed, to set". The loss is "if they don't have spades, or they don't *find* spades, I'm Lose 6. How likely is that, compared to the vig bonus?)
Make it 1=6=3=3, and I'm much more likely to Texas.
#20
Posted 2013-May-22, 14:31
http://www.bridgebas...856#entry726856
One the example hand, out of 10,000 trials, it made game 41.62% of the time, which is well above the equity point, so that strongly supports just blasting game.