|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
 Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 7:53 pm Post subject: 41 |
 |
|
Nice! So he led you a heart, I'm guessing. The contract is almost impossible to make without the heart lead, because you have only one entry to dummy, but you need to make two successful finesses. Fortunately, the heart lead gives you one, and either one of the others you might choose both work.
Edit: OK. Looking at this some more, I don't really see how you made this. Even if he led you a heart, so you can take three hearts, take the ace, finesse the J and take the K of diamonds, then throw him in with the fourth heart, you have no way to cash your good diamond in dummy, and even if he leads you a spade, that only gets you 3 spade tricks. You make 3 each of spades, hearts, and diamonds, plus 2 clubs, for only 11 tricks. Where did you get the 12th one?
Did north foolishly discard a spade along the way? I can see that he might, since he had to find 2 discards from his black suits. However, he should have realized that clubs couldn't be a threat, because you have no entries to dummy, so he should have held on to his spades.
Finally, I think you bid this correctly, but your partner was over-aggressive. "A natural opening of 3NT shows 25-27" according to some bridge web site I googled. So, even if you had the maximum, you only had 32 points between you, and it's not like he had a runnable suit or anything. You're usually looking for 33 or 34 points for a small slam, though often that is distributional (even in NT). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Quailman
His Postmajesty
|
| Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 8:59 pm Post subject: 42 |
|
|
| Why would you take the Ace of Diamonds before finessing the Jack? If you win the Heart lead in dummy, you finesse the Jack of Diamonds, take the King, lead back to the Ace to finesse in S, discover that the 9 of D is good, and throw a losing H or S on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trojan Horse
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 4:47 am Post subject: 43 |
|
|
Zag, you can click through the hand to see what happened.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 6:42 am Post subject: 44 |
|
|
Luckily, the bad guys didn't lead a club (the only suit where there's no change for tricks beyond two). They led a heart. I played the ten because dummy had few entries. It held, so now I know the queen is with S. No chance of four heart tricks then - can't finesse the jack because my hand lacks another low heart to lead towards it after east rises with the Q. So that's out.
So I'm looking at 2 club, 2 diamond, 3 heart (thanks to the lead) and 2 spade tricks. The excellent spot cards mean I can develop another trick in diamonds and in spades. If either finesse is on, I can play that suit for 4 tricks. However, dummy has bad entries, so if the spade finesse is on, it needs to be taken immediately because it'll have to be done twice to play the suit for 4 tricks. So I finesse spades, it's on. So now I'm looking at 2 club, 2 diamond, 3 heart and 4 spade, almost home. Just need an extra trick from the diamond suit. So I play the jack. If they win the queen I can cash the K, overtaken the T, cash the 9 and finesse a spade again for my 12 tricks. If they hold back and the jack holds I cash the K, overtake the T and finesse spades, no need for the 9 to make a trick.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 11:59 am Post subject: 45 |
|
|
| Trojan Horse wrote: |
| Zag, you can click through the hand to see what happened. |
Oh, I didn't realize that. And I see that the free finesse on the first trick gave you a second entry to dummy, which I would have realized if I were actually playing it. But overall, your method was clearly better than anything I thought of. By losing the diamond early, you were able to capitalize on the 3-3 diamond split. Very nicely done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 5:36 pm Post subject: 46 |
|
|
I didn't need a 3-3. I had all the top diamonds (besides the Q). I just needed to promote them.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tally*
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dragon Phoenix
Judge Doom
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:19 pm Post subject: 49 |
|
|
Most likely. The question is, isn't it better to play 4S? Theoretically it's one down, but back in the declaration stage.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trojan Horse
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:20 am Post subject: 50 |
|
|
With best defense, 3NT and 4S are both down 1.
With 3NT, the deceptive play mentioned in the column is available. It's not available for 4S.
Sounds like they were in the right contract to me.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:58 am Post subject: 51 |
|
|
In retrospect, yes. I was taught to prefer major to NT. So, is 3NT better here in anything but hindsight?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dragon Phoenix
Judge Doom
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:51 pm Post subject: 52 |
|
|
With a 4-4 in a major, 4 in that suit is the logical contract if you have sufficient points, (that's what Stayman is all about). But once you can't exchange the info to establish that due to the opponents' bidding, 3 NT is not too bad. Of course the hands are short on top cards but some compensation in the long diamons suit.
_________________
My photography:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/artrock2006/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tally*
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:15 pm Post subject: 53 |
|
|
| Mum's reply wrote: |
Nine tricks is always tempting ahead of the 10 trick game, but essentially the discussion is correct – the false card is available in 3NT but not 4S. And there are not enough tricks (high cards) available for either game.
I bid it thinking the weak hand held QD of course and hoping for a club card rather than the spade card he had, so had to false card in tempo and hope….. A bit like doing a Hollywood in front of the goal and sucking the penalty! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 7:25 am Post subject: 54 |
|
|
Our bridge teacher finally gave in and started tutoring us privately, after she saw how ridiculously easy the regular pace of the course was for us (not that big an accomplishment - it's targeted at the 60+ crowd, and they take a long time to learn new information*).
So, I finally know how to play weak 2s and strong 2c. Basically a strong 2c tells partner "I either have a boatload of points, or a boatload of tricks, so don't you dare pass". The weakest response partner can make is 2d, which is artificial and says "I have 0-6 points, so we probably won't end in slam, let's look for the game". With a good suit (5+ or 6+ cards, depending on agreement) and 7+ points, partner can show his suit (at 3-level for minors, 2-level for majors). With 7-8 points and a balanced hand, responder says 2NT. I'm guessing with more points and a balanced hand, responder will just start looking for slam, but this part we didn't get to yet.
Weak 2s are a lot more complicated than that, at least to me. It's the first thing I learned where you have to consider your position and your vulnerability, at least.
* just look at Pablo
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:02 pm Post subject: 55 |
|
|
Well, I certainly learned a lot since my last post to this thread. First of all, I know now that with extra HCP, 3NT is better than 4S even if you have a 4-4 fit, which is why Tally's mum ended up in that contract. I also know that 2D doesn't mean a negative response, it most commonly just means "go on". Currently my partner and me play that 2D is either a weak hand (0-6) or a balanced hand with no five-card major, and we allow 2H and 2S to show 7+ HCP with a good five-card major. Experts today usually play that 2D means nothing at all and just lets opener continue describing his hand.
So yeah. It's encouraging that in six months I moved from being completely clueless to being partially clueless.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:08 pm Post subject: 56 |
|
|
And now, six months after, my partner and I won our first club-level competition (five weeks, between 7 and 8 rounds, between 3 and 4 boards each round, so overall a 100 something boards). Sadly "my partner" is no longer my wife - she decided she doesn't want to play unless she's good and doesn't want to invest time in getting good. In any case, looking back, I was taught Bridge abysmally. I'm still working on forgetting many of the things they taught me.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 3:37 pm Post subject: 57 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Sadly "my partner" is no longer my wife. |
When I read this far, I thought you were saying that you've gotten divorced, but you are still bridge partners. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
groza528
No Place Like Home
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 5:03 pm Post subject: 58 |
|
|
I was going to comment on that as well, but Zag beat me to it.
...Which I guess didn't stop me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 6:37 pm Post subject: 59 |
|
|
People claim that if we'd kept playing together we'd get divorced. Probably an exaggeration, though she did get pretty mad at me at times.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trojan Horse
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:39 pm Post subject: 60 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| People claim that if we'd kept playing together we'd get divorced. Probably an exaggeration, though she did get pretty mad at me at times. |
Divorce may be the least of your worries, Antrax. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax*
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:55 pm Post subject: 61 |
|
|
| I can totally see this happening, sadly. Not for me and my wife, for couples in general. I've seen 60+ year olds bickering like kids including "la la la I'm not listening" and other intelligent discussion techniques over failed auctions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 12:33 am Post subject: 62 |
|
|
According to my sig, I may not be as worried 
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
