Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Buddy Hanby
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 79 80 81 82
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think partner has 7 spades to the AKQ and nothing else. With a side card in addition, he would have bid 3 instead of 4. But, if partner is Eric, there's no telling what he might have-:).
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The OP doesn't say anything about fit non-jumps, and I would not play them without a long discussion of when they apply. However, let's give partner Kxx, xx, xxx,AQJxx. Opponents have 9 hearts, yet no one has shown them. Opponents have 9 diamonds, yet LHO bid only 2 and RHO seems willing to sell out to 3.
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you opened this hand 1 and partner bid 3 (limit raise), would you raise to 4? Very likely, you should raise. There's no way to tell for sure, but many sub-minimums make game very good: xxxx, xx, AKx, xxxx. Yet, certain committees at the ACBL and EBU have decreed that it's against the rules for newer players to open this hand?? Really?
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, 3 is a relay, but strong actions after the relay, such as 4, confirm real clubs. Other approaches may miss slam in a 4-4 club fit.
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What hand do you suggest? Perhaps, the opponent's bidding is bizarre, but I'm having a hard time coming up with a hand for partner that fits well with this auction.
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In addition, if you cue bid you'll end up in hearts anytime partner's majors are equal: xx, xx; Qx, Qx; and xxx, xxx. In every such case you would rather be in spades. If the majors were reversed, I would be much closer to cue bidding because you get to the right suit when partner's holdings are equal.
July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Peg.
July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4 seems very optimistic. Where are the s? Why are opponents not bidding s more vigorously? x, xxxx, xx, AQxxxx seems to be about the expected hand for partner, but a void in s would not be surprising. Maybe the majority expect partner to open 3 with this type of hand?
July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To me, the first sequence shows 5M, 1in the OM, 3, and 4. Assuming that an inverted minor denies a 4-card M, the second sequence shows 4M and 5+.
July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't play poker and am probably misinformed. However, I would think a machine's ability to maintain a perfect “poker face” might give it a big advantage.
July 12
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would estimate that 99% of the bridge world plays your example auction as a diamond raise. A delayed 2 should be natural, but this may be what you intended.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A or K of diamonds, whichever is not the power lead.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sounds like the EBU is trying to exceed the ACBL in silliness.
July 11
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree 3 should be forcing, but South still should not have bid 3. He was engaged in what Hugh Kelsey called “daisy picking.” Seems like there was a bee in the daisy, and he got stung.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let me clarify. I agree with Danny Sprung that no one should be excluded from the top bracket who wants to play there. That said, it can be almost painful to play against players who would prefer a lower bracket and would be more competitive in the lower bracket but are required to play in the top bracket because of master point inflation combined with poor design of the event. I don't think this is enjoyable for any of the parties involved.

As to what a more “scientific” poll of “top experts” (under Mark's definition) would show: I imagine that a majority would prefer the old days. There was only one main event at a time, everyone played everyone else, and a typical regional event filled a large ballroom. Yes, near novices had to play against experts, but it was more diluted. There were two or three seeded pairs in a section. They could learn at those tables but play against their peers or near-peers most of the time. In addition, scoring a top against Hamman, Soloway, etc., gave you bragging rights. In addition, weaker players often got “adopted” by strong player-a fantastic learning opportunity. The present situation almost precludes this.

End of rant.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 was not well thought out. If you are not going to compete higher, you prefer a diamond lead. If you are going to compete higher, you want partner to be able to take a preference without raising the level. No, 2 followed by 3 does not show 5-4.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My rule is that marginal t/o doubles must have 4 cards in the other major. I doubt whether these hands make it to “marginal,” but they flunk the other major test in an extreme manner.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd rather double than bid 2. 2NT???!!!
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I very much wanted to play the K.O., but 3 sessions in one day is just too much, particularly with the early start time on Sunday. The schedulers should reconsider this set up.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robert G, Rolling it back when the player has 4 is absurd. Partner shouldn't use Blackwood if unwilling to reach slam with 4 of the 5 keycards. 3 depends on the rest of the auction. Let's say a player has shown a 12-14 NT. He can't have more than 3 keycards. Of course, he can raise with 3!
July 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 79 80 81 82
.

Bottom Home Top