Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Caprera
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Double of 1N creates a force through 2H, second double takeout. Above 2H. DBL card showing (cooperative), new suits and 2N natural and not forcing.
Jan. 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would not expect a gentle raise to 3H to be forcing.
Jan. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Weak hands pass. Takeout doubles are meant to be taken out. Never risk a double game swing. Result: 2 to 1 in favor of bidding.
Jan. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know I suck at matchpoints but partner can be KQxxxx of diamonds and out, pushed them to the 3 level where we may have a 50% chance of beating them, and now you want to play “top or bottom”.
Jan. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I actually thought it was “guns”. So I just tried posting a separate comment for each of guns, lawyers and president. No censor of any of them. Perhaps a combination? Jay? Russ?
Jan. 2, 2019
David Caprera edited this comment Jan. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fair point. But if vulnerable opponents want to take the push to 5S, I am usually happy about that.
Jan. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you were willing to give up on finding the ST, and given a rule (which we have) that, after a keycard ask, bids above 6 of our trump suit are natural, after a positive response to 1C, opener could set trump in hearts and bid exclusion in diamonds. No guarantee, but the HK and 8+hcp makes 7S a reasonable gamble and you are always getting to 6S after a positive. Partner could thwart that plan by accepting hearts as trump and bidding exclusion in spades. :)
Jan. 2, 2019
David Caprera edited this comment Jan. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Certainly a question of partnership agreement. We play 1C-2m-3M+ is a splinter. Just based on my gut, much more frequent and useful. No we don't have a set bid for a 9310 hand.
Jan. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Our system notes say that bids that would otherwise be penalty are cooperative after a voluntary bid and raise. There are many sequences where that works well. This does not appear to be one. Back to the drawing board.

We had a similar one come up the other day.
1C(pre)-(1D)-1H (nat, GF)-(1S);
2C-(2S)-DBL
We are clearly in a force. By our rule stated above this is cooperative. But if so, what is pass and pass followed by double? I told Annie I needed to think about it. Perhaps the simple answer is just to say, “it is penalty even after bid and raise.” Appreciate thoughts.
Jan. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AJxx, xx, Kxx, AJxx doesn't seem like to much to ask for. 4S is not cold but certainly percentage.
Jan. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you. Yes I do consider myself a good player but I am not sure, given your description, which bid shows majors. Knowing what “reverse Cappelletti” is does not mean you can follow suit.
Jan. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure about overbid, but certainly I have bid my hand.
Jan. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A friend wrote me recently asking if I play Thrump Doubles. I said “not as a general agreement” which is to say, if partner holds Axxx, Kx, xxx, AQxx I would expect her to bid 3S. But I admitted that sometimes you have to double because there is nothing else you can do. That is how I view this hand. If she bids 3S, I raise. If it is a 3-3, too bad, I have slept on the couch before (and I will again.)
Jan. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not a fan of the “lawyers, guns and money” approach. Change by the membership is not legally prohibited. The bylaws provide the mechanism. But it is a cumbersome process (cynically, I would say “designed to prevent changes by the membership”) and extremely unlikely to be accomplished. The last membership meeting I attended in Atlanta demonstrated how difficult it would be. I believe two votes are required with more members voting than were in attendance.

I think the approach most likely to succeed will come from within. It will require a strong president (I believe Jay was and Russ will be), an enlightened board, and pressure brought by the rank and file members. The writing is on the wall. We need to learn to read.

(When I posted this comment, I got a message that it contained objectionable content asking if I wanted to continue. I assume it agreed with me and was referring to “lawyers.”)
Jan. 1, 2019
David Caprera edited this comment Jan. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We also play 2S as range ask or clubs but use rebids of 3D+ as being able to show balanced, shortness with clubs, and 6-4 and 224/5 minors slam tries. Jumping to 3N gives all that up. Going past 3C means we can't play 3C when responder has 6+ clubs and a bad hand. Sorry, not buying today.
Jan. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't imagine “minor suit 8's” is one of the choices?
Dec. 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I remember this board. I played it against Berkowitz-Sontag in the fifth segment of the quarters and it was instrumental in sending them to the second bracket which they then won and subsequently went on to win the D'Orsi in Lyons. Cream rises to the top. Sonty led a spade (after overcalling 2H on an identical auction to Fred and Kit's.) I played SK, CA and a heart. The heart ace was won and a heart returned. I won, played SA, SQ (pitching a diamond), ruffed a spade, DA, DK, ruffed a diamond, and then a club.

At the time it felt good but it looks silly now. On a spade lead, I can win SK, cash the CA, SJ, diamond to the dummy to pitch my hearts on the spades, take a couple of ruffs and make 11 easy tricks.

(At the other table, Wolfson-Silverman played 5D after a 1H overcall and on normal play lost a trick to the CK.)
Dec. 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps my terminology is not best. Better would be “a raise of 4M with honors in X.”

We play 4M-(P)-5X as a suit asking bid. Then we had the auction 4M-(DBL)-5X and had a question about whether it still applied. I asked around and got different opinions, no real consensus, but we liked the arguments in favor of lead direct. It went into the notes as “if the opponents compete over 4M, new suits are lead directing.” It isn't a high frequency auction. The auction with an overcall had never come up until yesterday.

But I am not sure it is a bad agreement. First, for us old folks, consistency is a good thing. We were both on the same page yesterday. Second, while natural is possible, after a 4M opening it isn't very likely you want a different trump suit. Third, the auction isn't over and the opponents may end up in a different strain. Fourth, it could be useful on the defense; partner will be able to find the obvious switch.

My reason for posting the problem wasn't so much our agreement but whether the hand should bid over 4S. We did bid 5C, were doubled in 5H, and went -300 when partner was 2=7=4=0 and the opponents could make all of 2S. The field wasn't opening 4H and our efforts were rewarded with a round, cold one.

I separately posted the companion 4H preempt as a bidding problem. I found it amusing that there is definite positive correlation between those who bid 4H and also bid over 4S, and those who bid 3H and passed 4S. I would have thought that if opener's preempt is going to be aggressive, that responder needs to be more cautious, and if partner's preempt is more conservative one would be more apt to raise on Ax. But I guess it is just more of a case between the lions and the lambs. Headlines in tomorrow's paper, “Lamb's win, lions go to slaughter again.”
Dec. 30, 2018
David Caprera edited this comment Dec. 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps you can get GEICO.
Dec. 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the memory issue is a red herring. Chris Compton has a good expression. When you start playing an agreement like Mulberry, there will be inevitable screw ups and resulting losses. Chris calls it, “ Buying insurance.” You paid a price for using the convention and then, hopefully you don't have more screw ups. You have insured against those losses. If the insurance proves to be too expensive, then you probably cannot afford the convention.
Dec. 28, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top