Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Amnon Harel
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 34 35 36 37
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From the comments so far, it looks like one should lead low with ruffing potential and high without it. Also functions as a signal to partner.
April 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not resulting, I'm a coward!

I really hate to bring a “we doubled them into game” to the comparison in teams.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed, it's a lovely hand.

So easy to ask yourself the wrong question “any reason to choose one black suit finesse over the other?” (especially after a bidding disaster rocks your concentration) and miss the point of the hand.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because that's the order that's natural for the writer ;-)

But I completely agree with you:
it's the wrong order for the readers and __so__ annoying.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is all mapthcpoints, right?
I'd expect more blaming votes in IMPs…
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do the defenders know that your only problem is avoiding the 2nd trump loser? If not, what's the change that RHO will jump with the K from KTx on the 2nd round of trumps for some reason (e.g. looking for a ruff, or trying to open a side suit from his side before his partner gets in and opens it up from the wrong side)?

Yes. This is a free choice situation. You're guessing between LHO's a-priori holdings of Kx (2) or Mx (4, where M=T/J). Equivalently, with JTx RHO has a free choice of which one to play. Lastly, and most confusingly, once can think about it in terms of restricted choice.

Also, this is what “Suit Play” exists for. Ask it…
March 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@MR: Rajeev is asking about responder's bid after a non-forcing 2 as in the OP. Defending 2 is no longer an option

@Rajeev: I would usually guess to pass. I tried to construct examples that satisfy your constraints.
1. Some strong hands will be worth a bid, especially vul. in IMPs (both because 3NT is in play, and because 3 may make when 2 goes down). Say you have KJx, xxx, AJT8, xxx - 2NT seems obvious, and partner can correct to 3.
2. some hands expect to play much better in partner 5 card suit, so I think that justify an immediate 3 in the reasonable hope (but not certainty) partner has 5+s. E.g. say AK, xxx, xxxxx, xxx.
March 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> apparently that hand is within the parameters of that partnership

That smells fishy. Even assuming some upgrade for the nice club suit, their parameters seem significantly lower than normal. I think that warrants some sort of alert. And as far as I recall, I first saw something like this long ago in an entertaining column by Jeff Goldsmith (in http://www.jeff-goldsmith.org/bwoshtml.html). But I can't find the exact one. I recall it had “rule of 18” in it, but Google claims there's no such web page.
March 29
Amnon Harel edited this comment March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1) Extras - looking for game opposite ~6HCP. But limited by choosing a NF bid, rather than blasting to game or cue bidding.
2) Diamonds
3) A hint that doubler has club support, even if you did not agree to play paradox. The logic of paradox is inescapable - there are hands where the extra are borderline, and they only justify bidding more than 3 because doubler has clubs and would like to play more than just 3 if that's advancer's best suit.
March 26
Amnon Harel edited this comment March 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Tom it's not about the system. It's about how to think (a) about hand play, (b) about bidding. But of course, YMMV.
March 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Wayne: right you are. My bad. It's nominally 7+ but normal to stretch with less, which kills my argument above.
March 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As much as I hate disagreeing with Karen, for all the obvious reasons, I must.

Anything but “Five Weeks to Winning Bridge”.

That's the book I started with and it took me over 10 years to recover.
March 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(this was supposed to be in reply to the comment above)
Line 1 is no fun even when RHO ruffs the 3rd diamond. Overruff and try to drop the K?
March 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don't you want a natural 2NT response to cater for that second option?
Either way, responder showed 9+ (though it's normal to stretch with less), and opener showed extras, say 14+. So we're already in an invite and I think natural bidding should be good enough.
March 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are you assuming IMP scoring? The OP didn't say :-(
March 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I may be getting the terminology mixed up. Is there really a “normal psycho” or did you mean something like
“play inverted psycho suction when we are white and plain psycho suction when we are red”

(I humbly content that prefixing “psycho suction” with normal is, at the very least, misleading)
March 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Exactly. Furthermore, without the extra chance of bidding and making a slam, double becomes much more attractive. After all, there are probably 18 total trumps (and probably no secondary fits), so bidding 5 over 5 merely to make game is a 3 trick violation of total tricks. The LOTT is inexact, but still, it is rarely off by 3 or more.

Of course, you cannot cue bid here if partner might get overly excited with something like xxxx, Kxxx, Kxxxx, -.
March 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If LHO has K5 either play yields 3 heart tricks. Leonard's play appears to lose tempo, but it's LHO who'll have to lead s to take advantage of that, and doing so guarantees your second stopper (if diamonds are 4-3, you'll make with 2s, 3s, 2s and 2s).
March 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Impressive understatements Ian :-)

We also play 4 as fast arrival here: showing minimal HCP, minimal shape, and minimal controls. So had I opened this a strong 1NT, it would still be too strong for a jump to 4.
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@CZ: I was surprised MR quoted K&R, which as better for unbalanced hands. But this probably explains why your conclusions are the opposite of his - it's all hidden in the assumption of not looking at alternative contracts. Those are relevant opposite unbalanced hands, and then K&R (and other nuanced evaluations) is more relevant. By limiting your simulations to two balanced hands you concentrated on situations where plain HCP rocks.
March 15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 34 35 36 37
.

Bottom Home Top