BBO Discussion Forums: Low level TO double - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Low level TO double

Poll: Low level TO double (14 member(s) have cast votes)

What's your first choice of call?

  1. Pass (7 votes [50.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 50.00%

  2. 1H (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. 2H (6 votes [42.86%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 42.86%

  4. Other (1 votes [7.14%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 7.14%

What's your second choice of call?

  1. Pass (2 votes [14.29%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

  2. 1H (6 votes [42.86%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 42.86%

  3. 2H (3 votes [21.43%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 21.43%

  4. Other (3 votes [21.43%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 21.43%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 User is offline   Jinksy 

  • Experimental biddicist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,909
  • Joined: 2010-January-02
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-May-19, 17:46



IMP pairs. 1 promised 4+.

If you were barred from your first choice of call, what would your second be? (any time, Nige ;) )
The "4 is a transfer to 4" award goes to Jinksy - PhilKing
1

#2 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2017-May-19, 19:44

If I were barred from bidding 2, I would bid 1. Maybe I can catch up later. 2 is a huge overbid. Don't really like NT bids, although they might work well.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
1

#3 User is offline   MrAce 

  • VIP Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,971
  • Joined: 2009-November-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 2017-May-19, 21:39

1- 2 for me. Pd sees that I did not overcall 1 over 1 .

2- I don't know, anything but 1 looks ok to me.
"Genius has its own limitations, however stupidity has no such boundaries!"
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"

"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."





0

#4 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,128
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2017-May-19, 22:24

View PostJinksy, on 2017-May-19, 17:46, said:


IMP pairs. 1 promised 4+.
If you were barred from your first choice of call, what would your second be? (any time, Nige ;) )

I rank
  • Pass = PEN. Lead a trump. (But if opps escape into 1 then bid 2).
  • 2 = INV. Would like 5 s for this bid.
  • 1N = NAT. 8-11. Would prefer 2-3 s for this bid.
  • 1 = NAT.

0

#5 User is offline   rmnka447 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,366
  • Joined: 2012-March-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Bridge, Golf, Soccer

Posted 2017-May-20, 01:25

1 - Pass. Your hand looks to have 3 tricks in Diamonds plus another 1 1/2 QTs. If partner has full value for the reopening double, opener could be going for a number. Even with a light distributional double you'll still likely to beat 1 x.

2 - 1 - The diamond values are somewhat wasted and partner is normally assuming points in your hand to reopen. So your hand falls into a minimum category.
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

5 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users