Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Aviv Shahaf
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Except when the partner of the 3 bidder ups it one more.
Trying to play your opponents has other risks…
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OP mentions that “Skip Bid Warnings”, such as a Stop card, are not in use.
They say nothing about mandatory pauses after a skip bid.
I’m not aware of any jurisdiction who does not acknowledge the need for extra time in some scenarios, such as a jump shift at an early stage of the auction.
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If accepting the transfer is the only option with “10 to 12 Balanced” then why even mention that you have “2 to 5 Hearts”?
That addition is redundant when you already announce a “balanced” hand and is only relating to your own transfer bid and not to partner’s hand.
IMO the correct explanation is that the 2 bid shows “Balanced hand with 10 to 12 points”
If the opponents wants to know about the other bids, which were alerted, then they should ask.
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Misuses was the word you were looking for I believe…
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The director’s job is to determine which card declarer intended to play.
Either declarer misspoke or declarer misaimed his finger.
Only the declarer knows which is the case and the director should ask the declarer to clarify.
Since this is a case of conflicting designations, and not of declarer trying to change their mind, I would usually take declarer’s word and let them play the card they intended.

Edit (Add): I would also educate dummy to not move any of the cards to the played position in these scenarios until there is a clear designation.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes Mike,

8 trumps for us and 8 trumps for them does not mean 8 tricks for each side, even if there are 16 tricks available to both sides on the deal.

Generally you should only make a Penalty Double when you expect a 2+ trick set.
Doubling the opponents at the 3 level just because you believe there are exactly 16 trumps, and therefore you hope to be able to set them 1 trick, is a terrible strategy at match points and much worse at IMPS.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It says: “If you have full values for your overcall let's make them pay! but if you made one of your frequent light overcalls then get the hell out of Kansas…”
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would if I it was part of the methods.
But thanks for mentioning it
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OP states that “North broke tempo, acknowledged by N/S”

If N/S acknowledged the BIT then it must have been much longer than the required 10 seconds so the only relevant point is whether Pass of 4 is a LA to South.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I could live with shading the standard 8 to 10 range for a 1NT advance but this hand is just too strong for that.
I don’t like 2NT without a real stopper and a possible misfit.

Bidding 2 is the smallest lie and has the advantage of keeping the bidding low and make finding a heart fit trivial if we have one.
If partner complains I could say I had a Diamond in with my clubs.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If we “Believe South’s statement absolutely” then we cant rule that bidding 4 is not a LA.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gonzalo,

The UI tells us that opener's hand does not fit well with a “Fit Showing” Raise when in fact the spade holding of the actual hand is Ax…
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The crux of the matter is, as also mentioned by Michael and Jeff, whether the 2 bid without the interference is Game Forcing or Limit+?

OP describes it as “The ‘values’ 4 card raise” but does not define “values”.

If the 2 bid would have been a “Game Forcing” raise then the director got the ruling wrong since passing below game is not a logical alternative for someone who made a “Game Forcing” Raise.
Michael is correct in mentioning that there might be other Logical alternatives to bidding 4 if the 3 would have shown slam interest in the parallel universe South was in, so a different score adjustment might still be an option.

If the 2 bid would have only shown a “Limit Raise or better” then South statement that s/he was always going to bid game is self serving and should have very little weight in deciding the Logical Alternatives over partner’s sign off in 3.
IMO the UI in this scenario does make bidding 4 slightly more attractive so would agree with the director’s ruling.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2, unless the partnership has the agreement that opener’s sequence could be 4-5 in the minors, in which case I would be cornered into a 2NT rebid.
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bidding to make as opposed to pre-sacrificing…
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
S/He better…
April 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another idea that you might try is the “Dupli-Lesson”
They play 8 pre-set boards duplicate style (4 rounds of 2 boards) and the instructor goes over the boards after each board (or after each round).
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Methods please…
For me 5 would be exclusion and if it was just a cue-bid then 5 would show 2nd round control since 4 denied a non spade ace.
April 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not true.
When we have UI we should not choose among LAs one that is suggested by the UI, even if we would have chosen that action without UI.
April 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I abstained because my choices are similar to Martin's above.
This is the type of bidding poll where just saying “2/1” or “SAYC” is not very helpful.
Tell me which way I can show an Invitational hand with Clubs and that would be my vote.
April 5
.

Bottom Home Top