Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Anthony Pettengell
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This discussion as to 4 vs 3 is similar to my internal thoughts at the table, and is why I ended up bidding 3, not wanting to “force” 3NT but unwilling to go past it. I very much think it was the wrong decision, hence the question added to this poll (worded neurally to try not to influence discussion). I agree that 3 was “wet”; I'm leaning towards 4 though I'm still not sure of what the right answer is. Similarly still unsure for the problem actually posted, having selected the wet 3.

Thanks for the comments anyway, I appreciate the input!
Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The only option for me here is whether to open at the 3-level rather than the 2-level. Position and vulnerability dictate that. 2nd vulnerable this is clearly a 2 bid for me, and 1st/3rd NV against V it would be 3. I'm not sure where I draw the dividing line. I wouldn't consider passing at any vulnerability, in any position except 4th.
Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed. A 2nd seat vulnerable weak two should have a decent suit, but KJT has just enough filler to be decent. I'm not so concerned about overall strength, though I understand why in 2nd position specifically some people would be.

Similar to others the first hand depends on what the 13th card is, but it does look like it will be closer to a Lucas/Muiderberg/Polish opener than a weak 2.
Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This was indeed a ‘sanity check’ poll. I passed, without a second thought, and similarly agree there isn’t really a problem. Double was the winning action, but it’s good to confirm that there is no way I should have divined it at the table.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why did LHO win the A rather than the Q? That seems to be what has caused the situation… interesting hand anyway!
Nov. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the diamond ace is onside yes that words as well, but you're giving up on the (admittedly unlikely) chance of West having both aces. If you lead the K from hand you can still take the club finesse on the return (or get into hand as planned), whilst if you use that third trump and lose the diamond, unless you get a club return you don't have an entry to hand to take the club finesse. West can simply put you on table with a diamond. The entry for the spade discard is useless, because you can only get rid of one club loser by ruffing now.
Nov. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Exactly this. Partner is very likely to have 5 clubs, or otherwise is one of a small subset of strong balanced hands, and may well continue with 2N. Possibly 4414 depending on whether majors first extends to those hands.

I wouldn't bid the same in 5cm context.
Nov. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was considering between 2 and double here, but as the opponents are NV and this is MP I thought showing suits was more likely to gain.

In real life partner ‘raised’ my diamonds over 2, so I didn't have this decision to make. I'm not sure I have a better action than pass in mind, but 2 undoubled NV feels like a terrible MP score… hence the poll!
Nov. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Exactly this. I tend towards 2 at matchpoints, but I could be persuaded otherwise. Unequivocally 4 at teams.
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Exactly this. Systemically this is a 1NT opener in my current Polish Club (with the singleton diamond), and there is similarly some argument for 1NT playing a strong club. Playing a natural approach forcing system I’ll stick to 1 however.
Nov. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 is pass or correct, 3N is a forcing enquiry that asks about both suit and strength. My partner clearly bid 2N as a tactical try at finishing in 3, or 3/4 if you get lucky and have minor fit. I couldn’t say whether this is better or worse than passing 2, but I can’t/won’t blame partner for trying. With a doubleton spade such bidding would be unconsciounable of course.

In any event, I’m far more interested in the play. Whether you play 2 or play in 3 it’s an unlucky board for system the moment you open, there’s no escaping that, and that’s just the payout for aggressive preempts.

I’m not so sure of the best play in 2 either, to be honest. It’s a tough hand. Any thoughts on how to play either contract?

@Ian: thanks for saying hello on Saturday - I hope you and Julie enjoyed the weekend! Unfortunately we were sitting the same way so played your teammates rather than you yesterday.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I presume this is a companion problem to your previous poll. The two hands fit well because of complementary minor honours/lack of heart wastage, but looking at the hands in isolation I do not think they should be bidding or indeed inviting game at MPs. 2 is fine as a contract.
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Surely 2N as clubs + longer diamonds is more efficient? 3 skipping 3 doesn't feel great.
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As does position.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I really don't like that style. I appreciate that Odvrodka (or whatever variant used) COULD be bid on any hand that is 18+ with 3+ trumps, but the auction can be unweildy when only 3 trumps and responder has 4 if opener is unbalanced. We only bid Odvrodka with 3 trumps if (semi)-balanced, or if suppressing the primary suit seems like a good idea. We're very unlikely to do that with 5+ in the other major.

I appreciated that you CAN still use 2 in those situations - and with your example hand you clearly would, because you want to know about key cards in spades - but we do NOT enforce it, and so the negative inference is not there.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I discussed the point about 3 with partner, as my gut reaction was 3 denied 3 spades, but we agreed that it didn't necessarily - a hand with a good 6+-card heart suit and 3 can bid 3 here not 3, so 3 doesn't deny 3 spades.

Irrespective I'm becoming even more firmer in my belief that 3 should show 5+ clubs, regardless of whether that's canapé or 5-5.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We don't currently have this agreement, but perhaps we should. I think I prefer 3 showing 5 clubs but not necessarily canapé, could also be 5-5, with 5=X=Y=4 clubs hands rebidding 2 then mentioning clubs later if relevant.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The balancing seat is definitely different for obvious reasons. The question for me is “is there a hand that would want to double for takeout now, that wouldn't have doubled for takeout earlier?”

That depends both on the strength/variance of your initial take-out doubles and the particular auction.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While you have 2N/2 for takeout to the minors, I still have x as take-out here. It's nice to have an ‘optional’ takeout that partner can pass, but the main reason is simplicity/system consistency.
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, correct. Much like in Precision or ‘standard’ (approach-forcing/2) openings, your 2/1 bids can optionally be GF/US standard/Acol-style, whatever you prefer, and if GF then optionally 1NT as a response can be forcing/semi-forcing. The choice is entirely independent from the general system being Polish.
Sept. 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
.

Bottom Home Top