Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Dominic Cooke
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 21 22 23 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You could do that, but I don't really see why.
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Presumably I've lost the K to let them continue hearts? Let's say I lost the first round of diamonds as you'd normally expect. I ruff in N, play A, ruff a low spade, draw trumps ending in N. I run spades.

Maybe someone will call me out for missing a more intuitive line, though.
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand why simulations were involved, but they've led you to the same conclusion you can get to by looking at the cards. So that's… good?
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
…That's less than 50%; a bad slam. Luckily, it isn't the case.
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Totes. At mps too, naturally.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
…What is S doing? 4 cards to the king support, green on red, wake up a bit mate. I know balanced hands defend but give your partner some credit.

It's almost as if S feels like S doesn't think they have a 10 card fit.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
S should do… something. I feel like 2NT rather than 3NT as Art suggests - is the hand that good, after all? But partner will surely raise to 3NT, I'd hope.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ah, I was more thinking along the lines of the reasoning in the post - when you open with “Declarer needs to draw two more trumps, but is not in dummy to do so”, then taking the greatest number of tricks physically possible to reach dummy and draw trumps is counter-intuitive.

But I do take your point!
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it's better because it isn't completely counter-intuitive, to be honest.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Only two, it's just one of them was taken twice.
Jan. 19
2NT
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That said, that is a double dummy analysis - leads against blind auctions are rarely great. At least when I'm making them…

Edit: obviously you know that as well as I do, sorry if this comes off as condescending!
Jan. 18
2NT
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh, and Michal raises a good point - if ops know that I'm playing some bizarre convention whereby X in the passout seat shows god knows what, they can just pass rather than raise to game. 2NTX+1 or 2 or 3 is a darned good score. That said, it wouldn't be a score that turns up often because 2NTXX would be more likely.


And if you're only playing something because you don't think ops will bother looking at your card, I disapprove of that ethos.
Jan. 18
2NT
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting that you can't even imagine the possibility of it being a losing action.

I would never, ever, ever double here unless I can get them down in my own hand and can bid to a makeable contract over 3m when they run.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Out of these options I'm going with weak-only multi as a generic answer, but I'm with Frances - there shouldn't be a generic answer. Depends on scoring, depends on system. Mexican 2 is best by far if you're playing Romex - I wouldn't play it elsewhere.

Presumably you mean Ekrens rather than Erken, incidentally?
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't suppose we're playing three weak twos and then 2 as Lucas?
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A second thought - and a look at Steve's comment - urges me to clarify that “a habit” doesn't have to be regular or common.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No need to alert your bid that I can think of; no need to do anything about partner's 1NT on 3 points if it isn't something your partner would normally do. If it becomes a habit the ops should be made aware of the possibility.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It wasn't when I made the comment, I promise!
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Feels like an obvious “it depends”? If 7 goes down for more than the making grand, there'll be no adjustment in any case. Beyond that, it depends on N's hand and whether pass was an LA.

That said, pass does look like it'll always be a logical alternative on this auction.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know I certainly wouldn't be doubling on that hand. Of course I wouldn't hold that as a passed hand anyway, but if I decided to pass to open I wouldn't double there. Just looks like the commentary has decided to gloss over E/W's hands for no real reason, to be honest.
Jan. 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 21 22 23 24
.

Bottom Home Top