Re: bad judgment or bad luck?

On May 8, 6:31 pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

[on the auction and hand]

x
AK10x
KQ10x
AJxx
The system includes 4 card majors but not with this hand:
1D    (2S)  pass  pass
dbl   pass  3C    pass

Do you really think an intelligent partner with that hand would bid
the absolute minimum 3C [with xxx; xx; xx; Kxxxxx]?

--
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
 [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

****************

Well, that depends.  Could partner's reopening double be made on

x
AQJx
KQxxx
xxx

if so, would you want to be in 4c off at least 1 spade, probably 2
clubs (perhaps 3 if clubs are Ace third offside), the ace of diamonds,
and a potential losing heart finesse?

If that is an acceptable balancing double, then 3c might be a
conservative choice but it wouldn't be insane.

Kleinmann and Straguzzi have written that the impulse to re-open on
shape appropriate minimum hands is what really lies at the heart of
these balancing problems.  If opener could be trusted to pass hands
like the one above, then his double could be played as showing about a
king more than a minimum hand.  In that case, the jump to 4c would be
quite reasonable as long as the double promised sup****t for all unbid
suits.  Note how even the addition of the Q of clubs to the example
hand makes 3 clubs losers highly unlikely (they would have to be 4-0
for that), and the addition of the QT of clubs would give you an
excellent chance to hold your club losers to one.

Kleinmann and Straguzzi acknowledge that they are well out of the
mainstream on this one, but it would not be the first time that those
in the minority were right and those in the majority wrong.

Henrysun909