Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Gábor Szőts
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The most successful pairs who play a wide range NT somehow manage to never, ever play 2N (ie only inviting when partner is accepting).”

That is of course a joke. Anyway, no good pair I know plays a wide range NT.
Nov. 17, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I played a 11-16 NT up until about 2 weeks ago. In one match, where the opponents played a weak NT, there were 12 1NT openings (Mostly by our side). It was driving me mad. I'd prefer a different opening bid on each hand if possible.

Also, nobody speaks about the downsides of the wide range NT. E.g. either you miss a game or you play in 2NT where you should be in 1. When the opps compete you never know if it is safe to compete or double, so even if they are wrong they often get away with it.

I play 12-15 now and I am still not comfortable. I'd prefer if 1NT and 1 overlap slightly, so that I never feel a hand too strong for 1NT and too weak for 1 at the same time. The other day I held: KJx, Q109, AKJ10x, Jx. Is that a strong club? Is it not too strong for 1NT? AS we were not vulnerable, I went for 1NT but we still lost a game.
Nov. 17, 2014
Gábor Szőts edited this comment Nov. 17, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The notion of partner having to cater for opening values when contemplating his action has avoided me, to tell the truth.
Nov. 17, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The opponents were top players but had no agreement about the double. Opening leader took it as a heart stack and he led Q.
Yes, the main reason West passed out the double was that he hoped it would be interpreted as suggesting a spade lead.
Oct. 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To Michael: I see a problem with the suggested defence. What if declarer has QJ9xxxx Jx Qxxx -? Now if West plays 32 and East shifts to a trump, declarer makes.
Oct. 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, 9 was misguided. It was probably meant to make East cash his K but West failed to realize that in fact he was showing AJ9 as Frances pointed out. Actually it led to the opposite effect of discouraging East from cashing K.
Oct. 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5 was not laydown but it could have been made because doubleton Q in overcaller's hand ruffs out (first you lead the king). Perhaps not easy.
Oct. 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In fact the hand meets all the requirements for a gambling 3NT according to the agreements of this pair.
However, I am not sure that 3NT would have led to 4 (West may have preferred to take it out to 4, for example).
Oct. 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Frances, for the exhausting reply. To make things clearer:
EW lead the A from AK.
Both players agreed that at trick 1 the jack showed attitude, denying interest in overruffing dummy.
EW normally play attitude when switching.
Oct. 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For me it looks scary to commit to the 4-level with 25 HCP's and a suit not certain to run. However, it might be a winning strategy in the long run.
Oct. 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my view West had the option of bidding 3NT but I don't think that double was unreasonable. With some hands 3NT will have no play when 4 is laydown.
However, E clearly misbid the hand. 4 looks like he was choosing from the suits partner had offered, no wonder that West lookeded for something else, not having real help in clubs. East had a good descriptive bid, namely 5, available, which assures West of suit length, at the same time denying slam interest.
That's why I chose 15-85.
Sept. 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm sure double is for penalties here, so the only thing I could invent here is 3 for the minors. However, that carries a big risk and we may not have a game even if partner has opening values, so why bother?
The real problem will come next round when I will have to decide whether to reopen 3 (I am not going to).
I never abstain but this was close as it would never have occurred to me to pass 2 at my first turn.
Sept. 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd offer a choice via puppet. The other day partner did the same to me and I chose 4 despite being 4333. Even after the hands have been revealed it was difficult to determine which game was best. My experience suggests to look for the 5-3 fit whenever there is a way.
Sept. 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe opening leader could deduce anyway that a ruff alone would not be enough to set the contract. E.g. declarer plays low to trick 2 as well then have 2 discards later. Would have to know whole dummy, opening leader's hand and bidding sequence.
Of course the knowledge of partner's spade holding makes the defender's task easier as he can exclude a line from his thinking.
Sept. 19, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a reply to Geoff:

I think the remark of CH, stating he was considering double, is a giveaway that he was not just being slow but cheating.
Sept. 19, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I meant to create three categories: penalties, in-betweeen, takeout.
Sept. 18, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I know it was not a mandatory opening…

I myself also bid 4. That went down 2 (could have gone down 1). 4 would have been 2 down.
Partner's hand: xxx,xx,Axxxx,Axx.
Sept. 16, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From the answers I have deduced that the double says it is our hand and we have no particularly good club support, and, of course, we don't have a clear-cut bid of our own. Also, not much in hearts is expected.
In light of that, what do you think opener should do in a pairs tournament, both sides vulnerable, with the following hand: AQxx,x, Kxx, QTxxx?
Sept. 15, 2014
Gábor Szőts edited this comment Sept. 15, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To Frances and Alan:

We have the following scheme when Stayman is doubled:

Pass: stopper. Responder redoubles if willing to play there, otherwise bids something natural. Over redouble, opener makes his original intended bid.
Redouble, 3, 3: no stopper, transfer to the intended bid (e.g. 3 = s)

This makes responder declarer if a suit contract is to be played.
Aug. 29, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you for the replies, everyone.

It seems to me there is no mainstream agreement for this situation.
Aug. 27, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top