Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Craig Zastera
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 94 95 96 97
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Again, 3 anyway as 3NT is too final with no trick source and only one stopper.
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I saw only this post.
Not playing support doubles seems non-optimal.

But even in that case, I think I would bid 3 with this hand rather than an “all too final” sounding 3NT with only a single stopper and no apparent source of tricks.
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don't like East's 3NT rebid at all.

3 would be OK to allow opener room to continue describing his hand (1-1-3 is often bid with a strong hand with 3 card support or a super strong hand with long strong s too good for a 3 rebid).

3 rebid might be OK depending on partnership agreements about length/strength shown (I don't think the s are good enough for 3 personally).

Even 3 might be OK depending on how partnership defines that (some would use it as showing a raise but not wanting to go beyond 3NT, particularly since opener's 3 might not be a real suit).

3 would be my choice (and I think would be big winner in a MSC poll).
13 hours ago
Craig Zastera edited this comment 13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3NT is extremely unreasonable with this hand.
3 is clear as opener has already denied 3 card support, so :Qx is an excellent holding in context.
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner has already denied 3 s by failing to make a support double.

Therefore, if he held “Hx” in s, he would surely show that by bidding 3 over 3 unless his hand is *so* suitable for 3NT (lots of stoppers), that he prefers that contract to 4 in a 6-2 fit.

Your 3 here does not direct him to bid 3NT with a stopper. It merely announces that you have GF values without clear direction and seeks more info from opener.

You really have few forcing options with strong hands that are not yet sure of strain. Besides the 3 cue-bid, I think only 2 would be considered forcing and that call would have to show more in spades than you have.
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here is what my vul vs. not 3 openers look like:
AKQxxxx-x-xxx-xx
(and I'd like the J too)
or
KQJxxxxx-x-xx-xx (yes, that's an 8 card suit)
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, the jump to 4 as an attempt at recovery might be a good try. I'd like 4 even better, except that might sound like a (big) raise.

It seems quite possible for opener to be 5=6 for his bidding (that is one reason for introducing a suit in which responder has denied holding more than 3 cards).

If opener holds as little as AKxxx-KQxxxx-xx-void (and that's not much for his bidding), then 6 is excellent.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Time to reveal the actual deal.

The posted hand was mine, and I elected to open 2.

Obviously, a weak 2 with a side 5 card suit is “unusual” (or perhaps some more pejorative term from those who find this totally unpalatable).

I considered this “aggressive” in my style (for me 3 was not even on my radar at this vulnerability), because I like my red vs. white 2 bids to deliver 6 (Rule of 2/3/4) almost iron-clad tricks.

So, for me, a 7 card suit is not uncommon for an unfavorable vul weak 2 (e.g. KQJxxxx and out), else a very strong 6 bagger (AKQxxx and out or KQJTxx and a side ace).

On this actual hand, with only :KJTxxx, it is hard to estimate “playing tricks”.
The s are only 4 (or so) tricks.

What is the side :Kxxxx worth? Well, counting it as “2” is optimistic but not crazy, so I decided to risk a (to me) aggressive and unusual unfavorable 2.

For me, the alternative would be PASS. 1 would be a distant 3rd choice (I'm a sound opening bidder). 3 didn't even occur to me (but at favorable that would be my choice).

My partner's hand was:
AQ97-J876-A86-T8

For some reason, he chose to raise to 3
(non-invitational) with this hand.
My RHO doubled, and LHO removed to (4) ending the auction.

We beat this 1 trick (best we can do on defense) for 1.5 matchpoints (13 top).

We can make *11* tricks in s as s are 3=3 with the A onside (my RHO held: 8-AT954-QJT4-AJ6).

My view was that partner, understanding my views on weak 2 bids at unfavorable vulnerability, should have raised to 4 or at least bid Ogust 2NT rather than non-invite 3.

I think he should have been surprised that I've opened 2 at this vulnerability with a suit headed by (at best) KJT,
and should strongly suspect I have a 7 bagger with a side card as well to explain my (surprising) opening.

My partner's view was that I should have opened 3, which I simply cannot imagine doing at this vulnerability.
I could have passed, though. It is not clear what that would have led to.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The most valuable people (to me) on BWers are those who frequently disagree with my views but provide cogent arguments for their positions.

Both of you (usually) fall into that category, so keep up the good work!
Dec. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So are you suggesting that here responder should jump to 4 even though 3 would be forcing in an attempt to convey that he has a stronger and “heartier” hand than opener can possibly imagine otherwise, i.e. that responder has probably misbid with his initial 1NT?
Dec. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems likely to me that partner has :KT753.

But with that holding he could play a higher spot and we'd still “read” him for that holding when the A fell.

Thus, I think partner is additionally trying to signal value(s).

It is also possible that declarer has :AK, hence partner has :T753. No reason for him to put up a high in that case since he knows declarer has A and another. If declarer's “other ” were not the K, he would have played an honor from dummy.
Hence, again partner's 3 ought to point towards s.
Dec. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In standard methods, after a reverse a 3 level suit bid by responder is GF, so 3 here. No need to jump to 4.

With a weak hand (less than GF), responder bids the the cheapest unbid strain at the 2 level if one exists, else 2NT.

I do think the initial 1NT response is dubious, particularly if NF. Why not just raise to 2? Isn't that why you play 5 card majors?
Dec. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I only occasionally (and under duress from partner) agree to play weak (12-14) 1NT, so my comments here are likely even less valuable than usual.

However, it does seem to me that defining a 1NT resposne to 1 as “8-10” solves much of the problem here.
That way, if opener has an ordinary “strong NT” (15-17), he raises to 2NT invitational with 15-16, and probably just bids 3NT himself with 17 (as well as 18-19).

I've even had one extremely good player (and top-notch bidding theorist) tell me that 1-1NT should be defined as “8-10” (or possibly 9-11) even when playing strong NT openings.
His reason was that this is much more precise than playing 1-1NT as “6-10” as I do. Can't argue that 8-10 is likely to be more accurate than 6-10, but the former agreement does force a lot of “fake” 1 responses with 6-7(8) HCP hands which might also hurt bidding accuracy.

In OP problem, the 8-10 definition does not solve the analagous problem when opening bid is 1. What then?
Defining 1NT as 8-10 would lead to having to respond in a 3 card *major* with balanced 6-7 HCP hands which seems significantly worse (to me) than the “nebulous 1” response to 1.
Perhaps you just have to live with slightly “too wide” ranges, e.g. 1-1N is 6 to bad (10). Opener passes with 15, invites via 2NT with 16-17, and bids game with 18-19.
Perhaps the opening 2NT bid could be lowered to include 19.
Dec. 14
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Martin,
Sorry, I got the auction a bit confused.
I believe I meant North could cue-bid 3 over South's 3 as an alternative to just jumping to 5 immediately.

Your suggestion of a splinter jump to 4 would be good too if it is clear that is what that bid would mean.
Dec. 13
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South's double and (PH) North's 2 cue-bid were correct.
South's 3 is correct.

North's 4, if non-forcing, is HORRIBLE.
North should choose between 5 and 4.

4 would be my choice–could his hand be any better for a slam on this auction given he is a passed hand?
The answer is “no”, hence 4 certainly cannot hurt.
After that, I think partnership may well reach 6.

After North's actual NF 4, South has plenty to boost to 5.
He certainly has more than he has promised so far.
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1NT forcing, then 2. An immediate raise to 2 should show a somewhat better hand.
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This one is close and depends on partnership expectations.
I play in “sound openers” partnerships.

The 7th is very important and I find my partners often don't “add” enough for the value of the 7th card when making these “2 vs. 3” rebids.

Still, here the suit is not great.
Yes, it is “adequate” for a 3 rebid (I believe that a very excellent suit is the primary requirement for a 3 level jump same suit rebid) particularly with the extra length.

But couple that with the extremely minimal 14 HCPs (typically to make a jump rebid with only 14 I expect something like AKQJxxx and a side ace), and I think that 3 here is just a little too aggressive.

I don't often play weak NT, so I am not allowing for any systemic differences here based on that.
Should it make a difference on this hand whether partnership uses weak 1NT openers or strong ones? If so, I would appreciate enlightenment.

I absolutely would NOT criticize if partner chose 3 rebid with this hand, particularly because I find most of my partners err in the opposite directon of being too reluctant to make the jump rebid when they hold a 7 bagger and borderline strength.
So if one of my partners actually rebid 3 with this hand, I wouldn't want to discourage a more aggressive view of what is required for this bid.

I also think matchpoints vs. IMPs is relevent.
The more conservative 2 would have even more to reccomend it at matchpoints.
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jack,
Me too.
I would like it if problem setters, after waiting for the votes to come in, eventually revealed the actual lay-out to those who took the time to provide their considered opinions.

Sure, one deal doesn't “prove” anything, but it is a data point and always of interest.
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Double might “win” (vs. 2NT) when partner is very weak and has exactly a *4 card* major if we prudently pass his 2M advance (which is what I would do with this hand).

But in all other cases (i.e. where partner is a bit stronger), the 2NT overcall is likely to work better for the reasons I've stated.
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The methods described are very weird and flawed.
The 2NT rebid with the West hand strikes me as totally bizarre.
Depending on methods, the choice would seem to be between 2 (my choice) and 2. But 2NT makes no sense.

East's raise to 3NT with a 7 card suit and minimum HCP values is also odd. How about a 3 rebid?

West's 4NT over 3NT seems about right now that we've reached this point in a strange auction.

But East's raise to 6NT is clearly the “worst” bid of all in terms of hand evaluation. This hand is a minimum with a long but very broken suit.
I would think the choice now for East would be between passing 4NT and removing to 5.
Dec. 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 94 95 96 97
.

Bottom Home Top