Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Chris Gibson
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hey Marc - I understand your frustration, but since my partner did not understand or work out that I meant the double as penalty, and we had no prior discussion about delayed double actions, then I feel like you got appropriate disclosure - everyone was working it out at the table. You don't have a right to know my hand, just my agreements, and in this case I felt that we didn't have an agreement - which is actually one of the reasons I took that action - I felt that in the post-mortem that we would come to an agreement.

If you notice, a set later my partner made a perfectly normal cooperative double, and I sat and thought and decided it was straight out penalty - further “proof” in my mind that we probably don't have firm agreements on those low level doubles (but those are firming up as a result of these misunderstandings). Furthermore, I disclosed that to Mark because of the earlier discussion where I intended a delayed double as penalty in an undiscussed situation, though adding the caveat that it was not clear.

March 24, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David - the style of 1N not denying 4 is one of the things I am talking about. It's funny - I think that opponents are so used to not having disclosure, that they will frequently lead a spade into my good 4 card holding even after I make it clear that I have not denied 4 spades. I think they think I'm trying to trick them, instead of just providing a negative inference (which I provide no matter what my spade holding).
March 23, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also, how crazy is this Vandy? Seriously, the top 6 seeds all out, but a 47 and a 54 still in the hunt? What a wonderful event this is turning out to be as we enter the “Elite 8” portion.
March 23, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
my second would also be Orourke diamond
March 23, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think its fine. Meckwell, like everyone else, has a right to a written defense, and it is their opponent's job to comply with ACBL regulations and provide them.
March 22, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner's got about a 5 or 6 count on the bidding. Isn't the most likely beat for this that he has an ace to give us a diamond ruff, and that we get a slow black suit trick? Even if that isn't the defense to beat this, leading the diamond ace still retains some options (albeit at the cost of giving up our diamond control), whereas everything else is committal, and no less dangerous.
March 21, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was a typo, ty. But again, while I believe the endplay to be superior if you know LHO's spot to be higher, I also think that there's no real way to know that. The odds of RHO's 3 spots all being lower than LHO's 2nd lowest spot have to heavily tilt the odds in favor of the finesse instead of the endplay, assuming that LHO has unblocked, which looks natural.

I have enjoyed the articles, though - thank you for writing and publishing these.
March 20, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At risk of sounding foolish, I think that the Pharaoh's team may have won because Lil Joe chose a successful, but not best line. His line required: The J with LHO, and for LHO's heart to be lower than RHO's heart.

By taking the spade hook, declarer wins when RHO has either the J or 9 of spades.

By an original count of vacant spaces, LHO has 4 spots for the J or 9, and RHO 2 spots. That puts the odds at approximately 50% a priori for the finesse, and less than that if you believe that RHO is less likely to find the K of spades switch from KJx, which I don't believe to be a true inference.

Now you have to take into account the fact that these are apparently good defenders that may see the need to unblock hearts from the W hand (assuredly each time W was in he played a high heart, leaving the 6 in his own hand to the 5 in the other hand), and I don't see Joe's line as a favorite.
March 20, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations Justin. Another nice win for you this year.
March 19, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
According to my parents copy of Hoyle, the non-authoritative online answers are correct. That is also consistent with how I played rubber bridge for 20 years.
March 17, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have no idea what I've already promised with 2 outside of shape. Have I promised constructive values? What were partner's other options than 3? Could he have bid 2N, 3, or 3 artificially with specific meaning?

I abstained because I did not feel that there was sufficient information given to make a reasonable decision. My inclination, assuming I've just shown a hand that wants to compete (aka, 1 sure trick for partner), is to raise to 4 - I have 1 card known to be working, another that's likely to be working, and potentially another useful piece beyond that, along with a partner who will be able to locate all of the HCP.
March 16, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, we play variable NT ranges, and we play the same XYZ structure either way. It doesn't seem to be more or less effective for either NT range (11-14 or 15-17).
March 15, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My partner and I have an agreement which would have made this hand easy - we lead high from an even count in a suit, and Rusinow (2nd of touching honors) from an odd number. I don't necessarily recommend this agreement - it works for us because it meshes well with the rest of our carding, but it can lead to different ambiguous situations.

Anyway, in this one the T appears to be the standard lead.
March 13, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also think that one of the other reasons besides objecting to the conditions that led to the poll is that the person “voting” has a bias that keeps them from being objective - like if I were to remove myself from a hiring decision involving my brother.
March 12, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the auction is analogous to a 1S-(2D)-3D-P,
3H auction. In my methods, that would be a non-natural non-minimum that isn't quite good enough to force to game opposite a minimum invite (which could later be converted to an advanced cue bid)
March 12, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
nice article, Richard.
March 12, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Really, Gary? people leave the room all the time for restroom & smoke breaks. phones that are off can be turned on easily. Its better just not to have them in the room.
March 11, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my partnership it isn't even close, Hendrik. I play fit jumps by passed hands for your example hand type, and there is no way to “force” me to do anything except a cue-bid
March 10, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1, 2, and then double the final contract is demanding a spade lead in my opinion. Nothing else comes close to making sense to me.
March 10, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted the Q, but I really was vacillating between the Q and K. If I had the K of diamonds, I would double even without the Q of spades, because of the 2 quick tricks worth of values. I'm a little worried with 3 queens as my values, but I'd still make the value-showing X
March 9, 2012
.

Bottom Home Top