Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Funny you should mention that you are half the age of the average ACBL member.

I used to measure my age relative to Dave Treadwell. I started playing bridge when I was 16. I first played against Dave when I was 17. He was 61 at the time. So I was approximately 1/4 Treadwell.

As I became a seasoned tournament player, my circle of friends included Dave. Still later, we would become frequent partners. By the time I was 44, Dave was 88. I had made it to 1/2 Treadwell.

Dave and I were partners on the District 4 GNT winning team in 2006 (along with Daisy Goecker and David Better). He was 94 at the time.

Shortly thereafter, I made it a point to do all of the driving when playing with Dave. I don't remember if he had yet had his driving privileges take away, but anyone who knew him knows that they should have been.

By the time of Dave's death in 2010, he was 97 and I was two months shy of my 54th birthday. The relative age gap was closing.

At 63, I am approaching the average age of ACBL players (or have I already achieved this dubious distinction?). I am finally older than Dave was when I first played against him. In any case, if I can make it to full Treadwell, I have a number of years left.
Nov. 11
Art Korth edited this comment Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This proposal to reduce the size of the BOD is a step in the right direction.

After so many years of no action on this issue, we finally have a proposal which may succeed. It will take some time for full implementation of the reduction, but at least it will happen.

Failure to adopt this change will just result in many more years of nothing happening.
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a rule with my partner in this situation:

1. For the prospective declarer, 3NT is non-serious, 4 level cue bids are serious.

2. For the prospective dummy, 3NT is serious, 4 level cue bids are non-serious.

So, in this situation, 3NT is non-serious.

Bidding 3NT non-serious is cooperative. Partner is invited to cue bid. It just shows the inability to make a serious cue bid.
Nov. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“In the 7♠ hand, finessing is a no win play - if the finesse is right, RHO can ruff.”

That is the point.
Nov. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a couple of nominations.

I was a witness to this one. I was watching a local round-robin team match. A friend was in 3NT reached in an uncontested auction. His spade holding was singleton K in hand facing singleton small in the dummy. A low spade was led. RHO put in the Q from AQx.

This one I heard about. Again the setting is a local round-robin team match. Declarer was in 7. A small diamond was led. Declarer had a 6-5 diamond fit missing the K (again, spades is trump). The Ace was in dummy. Declarer played low …
Nov. 6
Art Korth edited this comment Nov. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“What do you do with 4S-6H and 10HCPs when partner opens 1NT? He could have 4 Spades and 2 Hearts.”

Smolen?
Nov. 1
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
15 or 16 is too good to balance with a simple “overcall.” A simple bid in a suit in balancing seat should be limited to about 14.
Oct. 31
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South did not balance with a double or a jump (balancing with 2 is not unreasonable). Therefore, North's pass is reasonable.

The final contract is also reasonable.
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gary, I don't agree.

If 6 is very likely to make, there should be some rational way of bidding it. If the partnership does not reach 6, it is reasonable fodder for a ATB.

Just last week my partner and I were the only pair in a Sectional pair game to reach a very reasonable 6 contract. It required a 3-2 trump split and a particular side suit to break 4-2 or better. The trump were 3-2, but the side suit was 5-1. This gave us a zero against the second place pair (we were third).

I could not figure out a good way to make the slam against 4-1 trump, so I ignored it in the play, and it turned out to be irrelevant. For practical purposes, assume that there is no way to make the slam against a 4-1 trump break.

I would guess that the slam was much better than 50-50 to make. Whether it is right to bid it is another question (if all of the other pairs are in game and go plus, it is right to bid a better than 50% slam, but if any other pair is in a partial and goes plus, bidding the slam may not be right).

Would it be improper to ATB the pairs that don't find a good 6?

(As an aside, yes, we would have been second if we had not bid the slam. But I don't think it is reasonable to factor in your and your opponents' estimated relative standing into the equation. That would be 20-20 hindsight in the extreme.)

https://live.acbl.org/event/1910104/2503/1/board-detail/A?board_num=22
Oct. 30
Art Korth edited this comment Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You could make a similar argument from the other side, such as North could have – KJTxx KQ KQJxxx and bid it the same way. Why would South bid more?
Oct. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is nothing wrong with using Blackwood here, provided:

(1) South knows that North must have 4 hearts for his bid; and

(2) South is using Blackwood to avoid bidding a slam off two key cards.

So, upon learning that North has a key card, South must bid slam. If he is not willing to do so with that information, he shouldn't have used Blackwood to begin with.

Whether you or I think that the number of key cards North holds is sufficient to determine whether a slam should be bid is another question.

It appears that South did not know that North had to have 4 hearts, as South asked about the Q before deciding not to bid the slam.
Oct. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Meckwell.

Double = single suited in one of the minors or both majors.
2 = Clubs and another suit.
2 = Diamonds and a major.
2 = Hearts.
2 = Spades.

EDIT

It is certainly possible that he could have just 5 hearts.
Oct. 29
Art Korth edited this comment Oct. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This thread is amusing as it came up this weekend.

I was playing against two well known and highly respected players in a sectional Swiss teams yesterday. They were not a regular partnership. The auction proceeded exactly as set forth above. Slam was reached and duly made. Before I led, I inquired about the 4 bid. It was explained as RKCB in spades, and further comments were made along the lines of what else could it be? I commented that some players might take it as a splinter, to which my RHO said “Not if they are playing with me!”

While I agree with my RHO (who I have only known for about 45 years) that the interpretation among the players in our circle is virtually 100% that the 4 call is RCKB, it is interesting to see how many BW posters would not be playing with him.

By the way, it is generally accepted in our circle that after a 2 of a major response to Stayman, 3 of the other major is a slam try with a shortness and 4 is a slam try without a shortness. So any hand that has a splinter raise would bid 3 of the other major.
Oct. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree.

The problem (as was mentioned upthread) is when asker signs off (especially if asker signs off slowly) in 6 and responder bids again.
Oct. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know that in one of the first Romex books there was an explicit agreement that any grand slam bid after asking bids was final - in other words, if the partner making the asks bid a grand slam in another suit, responder could not correct.

There was an example hand in which the asker bid a grand slam in a known 4-2 fit that was absolutely cold on any 4-3 break in the trump suit. A ruff was needed in the short trump hand for the 13th trick. No other denomination had any play for 13 tricks.

We can debate the merits of knowingly bidding a grand slam in a 4-2 fit, but it was a cute hand.

Absent that agreement, I agree that the 4NT bid over 1 is dangerous.
Oct. 24
Art Korth edited this comment Oct. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure, but it allows for those bids to be used for other purposes.
Oct. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Randy: In the auction showing 5-5 in the majors with slam interest, the 4 bid is FORCING. Opener bids 4 with a preference for spades, 4NT as a regressive action without a fit, and anything else with a preference for hearts.

@Mike: In the usual Muppet Stayman sequence, if responder was just checking to see if opener had a 5 card major, over opener's 3 rebid responder bids 3 to deny 4 hearts (he may or may not have 4 spades) or 3 to deny holding 4 spades (and showing 4 hearts). Over responder's 3 call, opener will bid 3 with 4 spades. Responder will make sure that a 3NT contract is reached.

Note that the 3 call by opener promised at least one 4 card major (and denied holding a 5 card major).

Keep in mind that Muppet Stayman is designed to make the 2NT opener declarer except where unavoidable. So, with 4-4 in the majors responder bids 3NT over 3 and opener bids 4 of the major in which a fit exists.
Oct. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the Muppet version that I play, the following sequences show 5-5 in the majors:

2NT - 3
3* - 4**

*denies a 4 or 5 card major
** 5-5 in the majors, no slam interest

If opener's response to 3 is anything other than 3, there must be a 9+ card major suit fit. If opener's rebid was 3 showing at least one 4-card major, responder can bid 3NT promising at least 4 cards in both majors and opener will reveal the fit.

2NT - 3*
3 - 4**

* Transfer to 3
** 5-5 or better in the majors, slam interest.

This sequence allows responder to show his hand and his slam interest. It is a little awkward, but that is par for the course after a 2NT opening.
Oct. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Deleted.
Oct. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I haven't thought it through, but I think leading towards the QJ wins with hearts 5-1 and Kx with west, but leading the Q doesn't help with hearts 1-5 and Kx with east.”

It does if there is a squeeze (red suit length both held by West). But, in any case, it doesn't hurt. You will be one trick ahead of those who led towards the QJ.

If by 1-5 you meant that the heart length is with East along with Kx of diamonds, then nothing helps, so it really doesn't matter. That case can be ignored.
Oct. 22
Art Korth edited this comment Oct. 22
.

Bottom Home Top