Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Brad Craig
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 281 282 283 284
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK, I see Leonard's example. For me that hand (AQJx KJx Axx xxx) is not possible. If I weaken it by a jack, I don't want to invite. If I weaken it and and improve diamonds to AJx (say AQxx Kxx AJx xxx) I wouldn't double with that originally (it's close, granted).

So we're comparing apples to oranges. That's fine; If LH's construction would start with a double (especially if changing a major J to the J) I would want to bid 2NT natural.

I also noted Mr. Rosenberg's opinion that there is obviously no standard with this much disparity of opinion :)
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'll ask you the same question, Kieran - what hand would double 1 then want to bid a natural nonforcing 2NT?
April 21
Brad Craig edited this comment April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@MK - If you are referring to 3 as aggressor's second call, no.

Could you provide an example of a hand that would make a takeout double of 1 then want to bid a natural nonforcing 2NT? Maybe I'll begin to understand your viewpoint.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess I bid 3, feeling sort of ‘blah’ about it. I really prefer a stiff somewhere for these calls. The Q is a dubious value, but I guess the AQJ and extra trump or two call for something dramatic in spite of the sterile shape.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think aggressor can afford to move unless willing to force. That's just one guy's opinion.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Prefer Meckwell; in direct seat I don't act with 5-4 hands unless they're concentrated. This one isn't concentrated.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
… the only lead that lets it make when partner has J10x.

But it's still a decent shot.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Logically 2NT is forcing; I think a simple definition of ‘choice of games’ with only three hearts and a diamond holding like K10x would apply.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Auction context would affect things, but probably just asking for second-round help in hearts.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Probably a queen-ask, but if a partnership wanted to scrap that agreement after a void-response to make a new suit an asking bid in that suit, I'd think that would have some utility.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What about this hand an auction makes you think partner is balanced?
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I gave up subminimum notrump overcalls when light opening bids became all the rage, when opener's partner started showing up with all the queens…
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I dislike offshape notrump actions in general, but I would make an exception here - too many good things could happen and partner should not be going out of their way to get us to clubs.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm reminded of Rule #1 in “Playing with Brad”:

If everyone is bidding their heads off and it seems as if there are 50 points in the deck, Brad is light.

So if I'm North, nobody should be doubling anything :)
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Doubling, but only because it's matchpoints and defending 2 rates to be bad. If partner is 3=3=4=3 I may get a glare, but that is a worst-case scenario. Maybe partner has a five-card suit.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd bid 3 if partner were not Passed. Even so, you were unlucky. 3 was reasonable.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have been known in my youth to perpetrate a Michaels call on such trash. If I were to act, I'd prefer the two-suited action to 1. Such actions on substandard suits and lacking values don't seem to work for me as much as they do others.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd rather show a stuffed club suit than my stiff diamond.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sometimes being the strongest pair in the room doesn't mean much. They balanced and were right. The opponents are trying too.

Get ‘em on the next board.

If you are still trying however to have your cake and eat it too, maybe a hungry 3 after the balance was the way to go (not that I’d do it). Perhaps a partner who's jammed in the reds can find a 4 call.
April 20
Brad Craig edited this comment April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I get to 4 if I've been looking for a convenient way out of the partnership.
April 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 281 282 283 284
.

Bottom Home Top