Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Gábor Szőts
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe I was not clear. Yes, I know you can ask for the trump queen even with 7. I meant asking for it on a safe level (that is, below 5T) was impossible.
BTW, in your example, whatever response you receive, you are not safe. E.g. with 0 aces, you might get: xxx, AQxxx, xx, xxx. You may go down even in 4.
July 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That 0/3 is almost always 3 and you are far more likely to get to slam holding 3 keycards than one. Anyway, the sum of the aces in the two hands is what counts.
The advantage of the additional bidding space is an illusion. If you get a 1st or 2nd step reply you can always ask for the queen below the trump suit, and further bidding space is practically never required.
I remember Eddie Kantar once analyzed this topic and set a complex set of rules when 1430 is preferable to 0314. It becomes clear that there are situations where it is not advisable, and in my eyes switching to 1430 is simply fashion.
July 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What a perfect reason not to play 1430 (the reasons of which I haven't yet succeeded to grasp anyway).
July 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually I saw on a Mackwell system card that 1 is 2+ but singleton (high) honour is possible.
Also, with 1NT, you can declare that some obvious off-shape hands are possible.
Finally, with 4414 you can simply add a line on your CC that with that particular distribution you have no system bid.
July 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wonder how a pair, having changed the 2 opening from three suited short diamonds to Multi, does not know that they have created a system hole. Do they not know why they played 2 for 3-suiter?
If they said that to me I'd call them liars. No first time for me.
July 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Includig ‘I guess’ in the claim makes it clear to me that the contract will make. Would be tough otherwise.
July 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A nice pizza if there is no time for a full meal of three dishes. The afternoon session is not in view…
July 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I just converted my own SOS redouble into a strong NT when I ran from 1. That is consistent with the logic of the situation: responder can have a decent spade suit only if he's weak and I am strong, otherwise he would have bid something over the double. I think that passing the double then bidding something later is very likely to cause misunderstanding.
With all that said, opener's direct 1NT does sound strong.
July 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit, does not opener simply bid 1 with the hand you suggest? He knows that his partner has at least a good responding hand (because both opponents are passed hands). Why has his partner passed? If he had no attractive bid he must be totally balanced and will accept any new suit opener offers. Consequently, opener does not need to bid a scrambling 1NT.
In fact I don't think opener will run with 4 clubs. He can be sure of 3-card support. With some (443)2 hand responder would have found a bid.
July 11, 2015
Gábor Szőts edited this comment July 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
These were my initial thoughts as well but now I think the strong NT can be shown by redouble followed by 1NT.
July 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my opinion the biggest gain of Reverse Flannery is that you now have a convenient game forcing 2 relay in what used to be awkward situations (1-1-2m).
You can even show a GF heart raise at the 3-level if you agree to play 1-1-2m-2-2 to show specifically 4 hearts.
July 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After a week, as I woke up in the morning it occurred to me that this whole debate might be academic. Declarer never stated in which order he was going to take his tricks and I don't think he can be forced to start with diamonds first.
July 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It would never occur to me to pass 2. In my experience playing in the suit often takes less tricks than NT and 2NT has a nice preemptive value as well.
True, we could get a double by RHO but then if we pass opener is likely to double and responder to convert so we are no worse bidding 2NT.
July 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is a bit similar to playing the king in front of AQ, expecting declarer carelessly say ‘queen’. Some consider that as unfair play.
I think declarer has right to at least look at the other opponent's card as well.
Still, the play of J was imaginative enough.
July 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
12-15 balanced. Sometimes you miscount or a card was hiding. No other 1NT makes sense.
July 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted -2 because in my view being overly meticulous in claiming makes it a longer process and often the opponents do not even understand what I say. IMO, if it can't be made clear in a couple of words it is more advisable to play the hand out to the last trick.
July 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A long while ago I put myself in a similar situation. In a pairs tournament, after opening 1 and next hand doubling, I was in 5, having lost 1 trick. I had AK,Q,-,Qxx left, while dummy had AK9xxx in clubs. No trumps were out but they had the K.
At this point, without giving a plan, I claimed all the remaining tricks. However, clubs were 4-0 (under dummy) and the opponents claimed that if I did not start with the queen they are entitled to one more trick. I argued that even in that case I had a squeeze against those clubs and K but that was also rejected and just made was ruled.
At the time I felt the decision extremely harsh and I do feel it the same way today.
What is your opinion?

EDIT: There must have been a diamond in dummy otherwise I can't make even if starting with the Q. But the idea remains.
July 1, 2015
Gábor Szőts edited this comment July 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cancel all. I did not notice that 1 was not accepted therefore corrected to 4 after the ban.
June 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We have not discussed alterations in our bidding based on irregularities by the opponents, so double remains take-out.
Two remarks:
(1) A passed hand is never going to bid anyway over his partner's preempt, banned or not.
(2) It seems to me that it was not South whom E banned from bidding. It was West, his partner.
June 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry, I would not want to pretend I had some role in their victory, the less so because that would imply I owe an apology to their opponents.
BTW, I am sure that Jeff and many others, in not taking offence, are instinctively in the right frame of mind or are familiar with this: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/08/30/we-are-responsible-for-our-own-feelings/
June 14, 2015
Gábor Szőts edited this comment June 14, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top