Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Craig Zastera
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure–but that would be *3* which might be too high.
Much better to be able to bid 2 and perhaps play it there.
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's an interesting construction.
However, it would give partner :9654.

That doesn't seem consistent with his play of the 6 (he should play the 9 if he wants to discourage) followed by the discouraging Smith Echo.
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul,
I disagree with your claim that adding 1 HCP to partnership total increases 3NT make percentage by 18%-19%.

There may be some HCP combinations where that low figure is close to correct, but in most cases it is over 20%, reaching up to perhaps over 25% as one hand becomes very strong.
Some examples:
23 HCPs opposite 2 vs. 3 HCPs: over 25% difference
22 HCPs opposite 3 vs. 4 HCPs: over 25% difference

For 16 HCPs opposite 8 vs. 9 up through
20 HCPs opposite 5/6, the increase ranges from just
over 20% to close to 23%.

These results are based on both hands being balanced with no 8+ card fit in either major suit and no constraints on the defending hands.
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think criticism of East continuation is unwarranted.
That appears to be the defense that West wants.
Suppose the deal were:

Q82
982
J2
KT975
JT3 97654
K 74
AKQT754 63
J6 AQ43
AK
AQJT653
98
82
Or, give West :Qx and only 6 s.

In either case, the only successful defense is as it went with East continuing a 3rd round of s to promote a trump trick for West.

That would seem to be the sort of lay-out that would justify West's trick 3 shift to the J.
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4 is just about as easy a make as 3.
As usual, the biggest problem was in the bidding.
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Removed.

Sorry, I had a construction, but now not sure it is consistent with declarer's line of play.
Hard to understand why he is playing on s first instead of s.

In lay-outs I envisioned, any low now would suffice (so 7 was my vote).

I also don't understand why we didn't cover the 8 with our 9 from :Q976
June 27
Craig Zastera edited this comment June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 and 3 responses should be *Fit Showing* after
1M-(2M)-??.

This treatment and the reasons for it are described and exemplified in Andrew Robson's “Partnership Bidding At Bridge”.

You can find this on-line at:
http://www.bridge.is/files/Partnership%20Bidding%20at%20Bridge_2054397795.pdf

In this version, the relevent section describing the advantages of playing 3m responses as “fit-showing” over a Michaels cue-bid begins on
Page 43 under the heading:

“h) One-major - cue-bid (Michaels): ‘fit non-jumps’”
June 27
Craig Zastera edited this comment June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I might have bid 4 last round (instead of 3).
But I didn't, so I 'm not going to do it now when the opponents have stopped in a partscore.
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. I'm also eagerly waiting to learn what the alternatives to 4 are.
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I presume they’d “run” to 3.
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course, on that construction 4 is likely down on a lead and a return leading to a trump promotion (I know we can still get home double-dummy), or a trump promotion on the 3rd round of s afer a lead or shift:

Ax
KQxxx
xx
xxxx
Jxx 8x
xxx xx
AKJxxx Qx
K AQJTxxx
KQT9xx
AJx
Txx
x

But 4 -1 is still better than defending (3) unless we get doubled.

I do think that one way or another the likely result of overcalling 3 here is that when we can make 3, partner will be raising to 4.
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You have not given partner a good picture because if you start with double, he will forever presume you have 4 s no matter what you do thereafter because a negative double on this auction promises 4+ s.

Just because partner *might* have only 3 s for his 1 opening, we do not bid under the presumption that he does have 3 s. A 1 opener delivers 4+ s over 80% of the time. So we bid under the assumption that partner has the suit his opening bid suggests and raise with good four card support and no major to show (and no stopper in their suit).
June 27
Craig Zastera edited this comment June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I disagree.
Among likely occurrences is that responder will be 5=5 in the majors and insist on playing in one because he presumes an 8 card fit must exist (in at least one major).

Hard to imagine that 1 followed by 2 rebid is likely to cause partner much problem since that sequence describes exactly what we have.
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Suppose there was no “support double” (i.e. opener passes).
In that case, I think it is clear that we want doubler's 2 rebid to be *natural*–a strong hand with 5+ s (could be 6 or even more) too strong to have overcalled.
This comes up, and doubler would be screwed if he didn't have a natural 2 available to show that hand type.

It seems to me that having an agreement that the meaning of doubler's 2 second call should change just because opener makes a support double would be an error. First, it is a complexity likely to be forgotten to cover a rare situation.
Second, this hand type can still occur either because responder psyched the 1 response or because doubler still has his strong hand with 5 or 6 s despite the 1 response and the support double.

There are other auction types which I think are similar in that it is useful to be able to make a natural bid in a suit that the opponents have bid:

1. (1m)-P-(1Y)-*2m or 2Y*
most play these "sandwich position" overcalls in
an opponent's suit (either opener's or responder's)
as *natural*.
I know I play them that way, and occasions to use
that definition profitably do occur.

2. (1m)-DBL-(1M)-*2M*
Here it is useful to be able to make a natural
advance in the suit RHO (responder) has bid in
order to show 5 cards in the suit and some values.
I think the OP auction under discussion here is similar.
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner could have passed, obviously forcing, and then pulled my double to 5 as a slam try.

But he didn't do that. Instead, he bid 5 directly.
That shows big shape, high “ODR”, but not a really strong hand (else “pass and pull”).

So he could have something like
Axxx-AQxxxx-xxx-void

But that's enough for 7 to be good.

So maybe 6 is insufficiently ambitious here.

It probably couldn't hurt me to cue-bid 6.
That certainly indicates (a) grand slam interest and (b) no control. Might be enough to get us to 7 when it's right.
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am surely strong enough for game opposite partner's strong 3 jump rebid.

But I don't know which game.

I see little point in raising to 4 with small singleton . If 4 is our best game with this “support”, partner will surely know it.

So 3 seems pretty clear–choice of game cue-bid.
If partner wants to bid 3NT or 4, either of those is fine with me.

If he doesn't fancy either of those contracts, then they probably are not right as I've got nothing surprising in either major that would render one of those games “best” for us if partner can't bid them.

If he bids 4 of either minor, I will raise to 5, even though I'm not sure whether his 4m should be considered forcing or not.
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I cannot understand the votes for “double.”

In standard methods (e.g. Bridge World Standard), that double is supposed to *guarantee* four+ cards in the unbid major (s here).

I know some people (not me) “bend” this rule occasionally with hands that seem to have no appealing alternative.

But this hand is surely not one of those, since we have good 4 card support for partner's suit and 11 working HCPs (i.e. nothing wasted in their suit).

So a 2 cue-bid LR+ seems fine–no need even to consider lying about my holding in the unbid major by doubling.
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not a fan of opening 1NT with this shape.

But this particular hand with strong doubletons in both majors and the 4=5 minor suit pattern is close to ideal, so I'll indulge in what for most others is, I suspect, “routine” and open 1NT (15-17).
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd like to bid 4 Kickback for s, but don't know if that is available in OP methods.

I would suppose that would be the meaning in any Kickback partnership.

Failing that, I guess I could try 3 (splinter in support of s I hope). Hopefully I can ask for keycards next round .
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They are not in s at the point of the auction in question:

Pass 1 DBL 1
2 DBL 2?

The issue is the meaning of the 2 bid by the original doubler.
June 26
.

Bottom Home Top