Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eric Dong
1 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure about your friend but I would be much more nervous and make more accidents if my bridge teacher is kibbing me on my first bridge tournament.
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Disagree.
Declarer’s comment towards the hand before claiming/finishing the hand can be and should be ignored by defenders and have zero effect on the result of the hand.
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
we bid 1 with this hand.

Do we alert 1? or 2? or both?
May 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Full hand: http://tinyurl.com/y85dov8a

Lead was Q.
Declarer believed that S had long and therefore misplayed to reach down 3. Other table played 3NT from the other side due to weak NT opening agreement and N lead a small , 3N was made. I believe that S was not cheating in this hand, but I guess it looks quite weird and suspicious.
May 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Full hand - http://tinyurl.com/ybxkpnxk

Result: 1NTS+1

Was trying to convince S to not bid 1NT in this position…
May 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Full hand:
http://tinyurl.com/ycuedwdh

Partner agreement was lebensohl, so S should bid 2NT. Regardless, N would have bid 3NT over S's 2NT response. I am wondering if there is any improvement that can be done to the bidding to find the superior 5 game.
May 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree. But once we eliminate possibilities of cheating and UI with help from newer technologies, I believe no-disclosure bridge would be a very interesting game. It also eliminates many of the existing problems such as “when to disclose” and “what to disclose”.
May 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Definitely illegal in ACBL land with the 0-7HCP 2M preempts, other opening bids are legal imo. Not sure how effective the 1 or 1 opening will workout but as others have said, it could look bad as of now, but with some time and practice, you can definitely optimize and make them work.

However, imo you should not play system on over 10-12 1NT.
April 21
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure how to bid without special agreements.
Playing transfer lebensohl over 2 - X, W can bid 3 showing 5+ inv or better, E accepts invite and bids 4, W can consider moving further.
March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would really like to get some explanations and insights from the experts who think that a 4 bid was the obvious bid over 3 as long as that N knows 3 is probably not natural. With p's re-opening double you know that the HCP is fairly even between both sides. You likely have a fit on top but the break could be bad depends on W's 3's true intention. You usually have doubleton vs doubleton in so I doubt that you bid 4 purely going for the 420. Though we know that 4 would usually be going for -1, at most -2. So basically for you to bid 4 you need to assume that E-W is going to bid and make 4, given that if you don't bid 4 over 3.

My take on the hand:

Getting informed by E that W’s 3 bid was natural, and that p's X showed some values with 1-2, 3-4 and , and usually 4. You know E-W has likely a 9+ fit, and you can probably conclude that W does not have a natural 3 bid. And you know that you probably won't be able to extract the correct information from opponents before the bidding is over so you have to make some assumptions.

1) 3 could be a limit/mixed raise with 4 trumps. Given that p has values,E is likely to pass 3 with 5card or 6card with 0-1 so your best option is to pass 3 instead of trying bid a 4 and go for an optimistic 420 that usually don't make when p holds doubleton which is very likely. Note that E could still bid 3 with a reasonable frequency so 3 also has its merit, comparing to pass.

2) 3 could be a fit jump with 5 KTxxx (note that N doesn't have the T) and 3card support. Given the known information this isn't likely but is still a possibility. In this case, E has 0 and 6+, and E would very likely bid 3 if you pass 3. So if you hope to play in 3 by passing now you missed the chance of showing a reasonably good hand with over the 3 overcall, and gave E an opportunity to show more. Bidding 4 directly over 3 in this case is bad because you will likely lose 1 or 2 extra tricks on ruff.

Either way, in my opinion, 4 does not seem to be the winning action, given that you assume that opponents are ethical and there is no rollback. But I am not an expert so I would like to take criticism for any mistakes I made in this post.
March 29
Eric Dong edited this comment March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Problem is that is there a method to allow N to know if S has shortness or xxx in .
Feb. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We have agreement in this kind of forcing situations but this specific situation we did not discuss.

In general,
Direct bid = this bid is clear (5 shows I want to play in 5)
Pass = force XX, and then bid = this bid is not clear (P - XX - 5 would mean I can play in 5 but Im not too sure)
XX = shows values in
4NT = 2 places to play ( and another suit)

As this is a general agreement taken into this specific scenario, it kinds of not covering all the cases, and also some cases you have several choices. for example, this hand could bid 4NT( and ) or XX ( values) or 5 (to play).
Problem of 4NT is the bad quality.
Problem of XX is because usually partner might expect A here since partner is usually singleton in .
Pass - XX - 5 is also possible (unsure about because of not so good trump quality.

E's X here gave us more options but it also allows W to realize to make a non- lead so ruffing potential of defender is higher.
Feb. 2
Eric Dong edited this comment Feb. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not when you are vul
Nov. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not standard but a great alternative is to play transfer over 1

when partner responses 1 (shows 4+), you simply bid 1 to show exactly 3-card and less than reverse strength

When partner responses 1 (shows 4+, deny 4 unless is longer), you bid 1NT knowing your singleton is covered

When partner responses 1 (denies 4M, showing at least 7 card in minor), you simply rebid 2, and partner will always have 2+, unless he has 6+.
Nov. 13, 2017
Eric Dong edited this comment Nov. 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Most players I know play 2 over 1 - 1 as natural.
Oct. 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It really depends on your agreed 3 response range
Sept. 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
X is a matchpoint bid
Sept. 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Honestly I never understand why is it even allowed to ask the question, “no (suit) partner?”

I run a bridge group in college and I teach and play with beginners who are college students very often. The case where a person (even for beginners) to discard/ruff while still holding the suit is rare, and for him or her to not realize that immediately (before next trick is played) is even rarer. Even if someone failed to realize the revoke until the end of the game we can always adjust the tricks accordingly, and for beginners who made these mistakes they would be reminded to make sure to follow suit, and their chances of revoke in the future would further decrease. This also allows partnership to develop trust, the trust that your partner is a capable person of knowing what suit he/she has.

In local club games I often see players ask “the question”, however for a minority of partnerships/players, sometimes they ask and sometimes they don't. The problem is that these players usually only asks the question when they are surprised, usually when declarer has unexpected length in trumps or in a side suit. This may create UI. I do not think that opps are actively taking advantage of this UI, nor do I think I have ever got damaged when opps ask “the question”. But the real question is, if the game can be played perfectly without “the question”, then what's the purpose of “the question” when the only thing it brings to the table is the potential UI and abuse?
Sept. 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5 is my bid and I think pass over 5 should be forcing but I am not sure. Can experts explain the common agreements in this position?
Sept. 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 3 is a two suiter, what's your agreement on 2?
Aug. 28, 2017
1 2
.

Bottom Home Top