Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Bruce Rogoff
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 20 21 22 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks David, meant to type 5, not 5, which I've now corrected. But now that I mention it, what would 5 have meant in 1975?
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East should move, but the question is, how? RKCB wasn't available 40 years ago, 5 sounds like a request for control, and 5m is a suit. I guess 4NT is most practical. What say you Michael?
June 26
Bruce Rogoff edited this comment June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's aiming at a VERY small target, don't you think? Requires partner to have just about all the remaining strength (West is vul, so that means something), AND he has length, AND he decides to look for 's in a scenario where he know's they're breaking badly behind your presumed strength rather than just bidding the likely-more-practical notrump game.

Anyway, if you bid now after this clear UI situation I think you'd have a hard time keeping any kind of decent result, especially pulling to your “serendipitously” best suit.
June 25
Bruce Rogoff edited this comment June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's definitely no Stayman consideration here with West holding both majors. I would expect partner to have a weak hand with 's, and prefers playing 3 to 2NT. An easy pass IMO.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nicholas, I wouldn't put too much stock in the “strong majority” argument once a problem has been around for a day or two. I'd guess that many people change their vote to the majority choice, (especially if world class players like JD or Jim Munday voted that way), or they look at the early comments before voting. People don't want to look “foolish”.

I often see where another top-notch player, say Kit Woolsey (never one to fear being on an island!), weighs in with some persuasive arguments for a minority choice, and suddenly the voting shifts.

Anyway, I guess the 4 bidders are more vocal because they're shocked by the majority choice, given that most would also raise with my sample hand above.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd guess that almost all of the 3 bidders would do the same with xx Qxx AQ10xx xxx, because opener can still have a 17/18-count. Give him the more likely AKxxx x Kxxx Qxx and 3 is plenty, yet you'll want to play 5 with the problem hand.

I'm not too worried about missing 3NT. If 2 is normally 4+ cards we'll be at the very least vulnerable in one of the round suits. So even if partner can stop 's we'd better have 9 rippers…and on many of those hands 5 is equally cold.
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand looks suit-oriented to me, so would open 1. Should be able to find good 4-3 fit this way if that's best. And maybe 2 is a better spot than 1NT, if it comes to that.
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lynn, would you like an “UNDO”?
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
description above said 6 shows lowest king. That can be interpreted multiple ways, guess i assumed they replied high-middle-low or somesuch. If I know partner has K 7 now has multiple ways to win: J, or 10, or 's 3-3, or 's 4-2 with trumps 2-2 and doubleton .
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner's shown the king, so no worries about minor loser. S/he will bid seven with AKxxx, won't with Axxxx. Might think about it with AJ10xx, which is ok with me.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jack, you forgot about Q, but otherwise I see we're in perfect sync! Are you doing anything for the Summer Nationals? :)

In all seriousness, pard should know that I have shortness in a red suit, likely 's, to risk bypassing 3NT at pairs, so I think this is the shape he'll play me for. Wouldn't we all just bid 3NT (or pass) with 4-2-2-5?

I think with Bob's Qx and small I'd just bid 4 and hope for the best.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm willing to bet right now that a suit will play better than notrump, so I'm bidding 4. Partner should infer that I'm willing to hear 4 or 4.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Uh, maybe if responder is interested in s, he should bid 3??
The only bots that would differentiate the 4m bids as you describe are the ones programmed by…Bob Heitzman.

Are you also suggesting that a jump shift should deny playability in the other two suits? Is opener supposed to bid 2 only with AKxxx AKQx Axx x ?? Well, at least we'll make that when partner passes with x xxx K10xxx Axxx.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Most would play 2 as NF. I can see why some would do that here, downgrading their hand.
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't Pass forcing?? why not see if partner wants to double? I can always bid a non-forcing 3 later if he doesn't.

This is a very strange auction. How can South have a hand too good to overcall 2 originally? It's not like he's scrambling from 2 doubled. So if South has his minimum of a really good 16 say, what does that leave for partner? Maybe I should be content with 2, but at least partner will be playing double dummy
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not surprising that partner wouldn't be sure, though from his POV he should perhaps think, “why is he jumping to 5 when 4 would be forcing?”. Maybe he thought that you wouldn't be sure that 4 wasn't a cue bid, so bid a no-nonsense 5… The twists and turns of not having clear understandings.

Anyway, I like his 6 bid, sort of taking a “safety play” of his own! If it fact you had good 's with a stiff , he'd have to think 6 was at worst on a finesse.
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Obviously too good for 4, but without discussion anything I bid can be misinterpreted, so I'll just guess that we can make slam.
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, the natural 2 is quite rare these days! My partner and I don't play a lot so we keep it simple for now, currently play FOC over any non-penalty double or 2 bid that isn't specifically both majors. So double over 2 is Stayman, transfers on, 2NT as a transfer 's. With this setup one could make a good case for double as penalty of a natural 2, as we can now use 2 as Stayman instead of a transfer to 's.
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, David mentions the scenario where you need Lebensohl, but it doesn't look like FOC (with double of 2C as Stayman, and transfers) are Bill's methods. So now you're looking to split hairs with three different levels of red-suit bids, giving up on a not-unlikely raise to 2NT. That feels like aiming for a small target.
June 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
REGARDING “AT THE TABLE” RESULTS VERSUS DOUBLE-DUMMY BEST CONTRACT:

One of the issues with bidding contests is that one has to assume best defense. Why? Because you just don't know how revealing the auction might be to arrive at a contract.

Let's look at the original posted hand. We don't know for sure how vigorously 's might be bid before resting in a 4 contract. Seeing as the opponents are overwhelming favorites to be able to negotiate a ruff (i'll leave the math to whomever cares), and s won't come in nearly a third of the time even if no ruff, 4 becomes a huge dog.

This has to be reflected in the scoring. All the other contracts in the scoring table are more likely to go plus than 4, hence the bottom spot.

All that said, given our scoring guidelines, there is one score that I screwed up by about 4 or 5 points that even slipped past Jim, though admittedly it was a complex play issue. For those of you who REALLY have too much time on your hands, see if you can find it!

Feel free to email me at brucetrogoff@gmail.com if u see a scoring error in the future. I don't always see things here on BW.

Cheers,
Bruce
June 16
Bruce Rogoff edited this comment June 16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 20 21 22 23
.

Bottom Home Top