Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Parsons
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 29 30 31 32
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner doesn't get another bid, does he?
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jack, I really value your input. Would you pass any 12HCP hand at MPs? If so, is this an exception because it has five diamonds? Thanks!
Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not on my screen. West is on the left and dummy (North) is on the top.
Jan. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would say that it is certainly close. One can foresee a heap of trouble when the bidding goes: 1 1 2 4.
Jan. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed, perhaps Libchaber was not talking about our agreed system but another hypothetical system?!
Jan. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I stand corrected – I ran a DD simulation of this hand, constraining partner to four spades and 12-14 HCPs. 4 makes 65% of the time.
Jan. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 2NT
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why unplayable? Four of a minor can be the resting place only if 3NT is explored but found unviable. So, the uncontested auction: 1 2 2 3 3 4 P is possible, for example.
Jan. 1
David Parsons edited this comment Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem is, David, you are probably not going to make 4 even on a 3-4 fit because LHO probably holds at least four spades and the long hand is ruffing hearts.
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East happens to be Joe Grue on the bidding we're discussing (really, it was!).
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've been told that it's “Breaking the Rules” because there is no better bid. In a previous poll, everyone was given the system of “guaranteeing four” but elected to bid a negative double anyway. Evidently this treatment has advocates among the best players in bridge, so I'm open to learning it. This poll aids me in that. My own thinking was that if you do that, you should be prepared to pass 3 here, and while there seems to be some agreement here in passing, many prefer 4. It seems to me that 4 would virtually never be passed, so you risk getting too high for a known seven-card fit where LHO almost certainly has four trump?!
Jan. 1
David Parsons edited this comment Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
More info about our partnership agreements (if OP is referring to that): (1) 3 is criss-cross, showing a “mixed raise” in diamonds. (2) 2 is 2/1 game force, but partnership can stop in 4 of a minor.
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, Richard. :-)
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3x was a bottom (for our side), sorry to say.
Dec. 22, 2018
David Parsons edited this comment Dec. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The exact language of Bridge World Standard is being quoted. They use the term “guarantees.” It may not be relevant but the 3 bidder was indeed Joe Grue, a World Champion and I just thought to mention it as it is a privilege to play against him.
Dec. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And at the table that's how the bidding went but it meant the usual BWS-system meaning of a serious game-forcing action showing diamond shortness (not necessarily a void). And the followups were intended to be just as you suggested, 4 if allowed and 5 if not.
Dec. 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Splinter bids should transfer control of the decision to the overcaller or opener who is given information by the Splinter bidder about his hand. The Splinter bidder hardly has any information about the opener or overcaller's hand. The opener or overcaller knows alot – he knows that partner has at least a hand to game force, and he knows he has shortness in the Splintered suit. In this auction, in spite of that, overcaller passed 4, so he shows a minimum (doesn't he?). Then the Splinter bidder showed enough to bid at the five level on his own, so he has extras. So, the overcaller expressed with a pass of 4 that he has a minimum and now the 5 bid says nothing about diamonds but asks whether the “game force plus extras” bidder has extra extras? The overcaller is transferring the decision to the Splinter bidder? Doesn't make sense to me…what makes more sense is that overcaller is showing that he has the A and if Splinter bidder has a singleton (rather than a void) he doesn't have a loser in that suit and can consider another level.
Dec. 19, 2018
David Parsons edited this comment Dec. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Uh…last train after passing 4? Moreover, most I think would play 4 as showing a single or void, and the 5 bid as showing the A. Which is the agreement in the partnership of the OP. And secondly (as if I need another point), why do you think 5 shows a club control?
Dec. 19, 2018
David Parsons edited this comment Dec. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've totally agreed with you up until this point. So why do you bid 6 now? Is the 5 bid showing the A, such a good asset? No, it is not. Partner didn't bid over 4, so you can bet on a spade loser. And you're betting on no club loser? My, you *are* a gambler!
Dec. 19, 2018
David Parsons edited this comment Dec. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A conversation with partner can help a lot.
Dec. 19, 2018
David Parsons edited this comment Dec. 19, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 29 30 31 32
.

Bottom Home Top