Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Gabriel Foster
1 2 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, folks, 1 was in fact bid at the table, so we're on to part two (which I'll link to once it's up).
Nov. 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some part of me really wants to take this as a two way shot, especially at MPs. That is, “If your hand looks defensive let's hit this, else let's play 3.” In some partnerships we've classified this double as DSI, which means roughly that. Undiscussed, though, I wouldn't risk pulling.
Oct. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seeing as this poll looks to be somewhat decided already, I'll reveal the rest of the story. I never did get to see the result of this hand, as my BBO random partner booted me before I could make my call. Thinking about it after I convinced myself pass was correct if distasteful, and wanted to hear what others thought. Thanks folks.
Oct. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Alright, folks, think we can call it now, thanks for your input. Partner holding this hand led the A, and when I suggested after the hand that I thought there was a (convincing to me) argument for the J instead, the entire table chimed in to disagree :) Thanks for helping me with the gut check.
Oct. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I opened this 3, I did it because I was willing to try and beat 3NT. Given that, I'm trying a small spade (come on stiff spade jack in dummy!).
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For bidder in problem:
…..if bidder is insane junior:
……….print ‘4
…..else print ‘1
Feb. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I alert it “Semi-Natural,” for what it's worth.
Nov. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wrote like three paragraphs on this, but to sum it up: this never happens, and when it does, you either won't know it, won't care, or it won't matter. So many unlikely things have to happen for the signal to be useful, identifiable, and actionable.
Oct. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Suit preference for me, so neither. If I'm ruffing with an honor voluntarily and safely, then it should be functionally equivalent to the spot card. It seems to me that it's not going to be often that partner needs to know whether I have a second honor in their trump suit.
Oct. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was thinking the same thing, but realized that rule exists because it the 7 rates to be good too often. Playing AGAINST a diamond contract, let alone a diamond slam, the opposite should hold, right? Voted 4 for this reason; x2 for the double, x2 for defeating a diamond contract.
Oct. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2NT should be some sort of minor hand, but as it wasn't described as such, I'll take it as natural, however awful that may be (partner, I have an 15-17/18-19 count that doesn't want to play a redoubled 1-level contract). Given that, 3 is natural and forcing, because playing transfers here would require a discussion, and if we'd had one of those we wouldn't be in this spot.
Sept. 23, 2015
Gabriel Foster edited this comment Sept. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted for pass, but only on the assumption that my opps are playing support redoubles. If RHO had no way to show a 3-card spade raise, I'm bidding 1NT and praying. Here's hoping I don't have to ask to see a CC (I might pull if I had to ask).
Sept. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When did Oren say two suited preempts were more obstructive than one suited preempts? He simply said they were foreign (check), and obstructive, in that preempts (two suited or otherwise) obstruct the opponents auction. Methods help over two-suited preempts, and many Americans (juniors, especially) rarely play them, if they have them at all. Hence Oren's comment, I suspect.
Sept. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree Carol; if we look at modern sports, steroid use is rampant, not so much because they make people better athletes (though they do), but because in many cases they are necessary to win (e.g. Cycling), simply because everyone else is already cheating. I feel sympathy for bridge pros; you can spend years practicing the game you love, making sure to get everything right, and maybe you end up having trouble making the sort of living you've worked for because of cheats. Any response save for one is saddening: joining the cheaters, leaving the game, making less than you'd like. The one response that makes me feel better? Well, Boye's mostly– saying enough is enough. The next few years will be critical in establishing regulations and procedures that discourage unethical behaviour.
Sept. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yasser, you say that partner is “marked” with four spades– this is, I would opine, incorrect for a number of reasons. To begin with, the opponents could have a 10 or 11 card fit. East could be bidding 4 to make or a sacrifice, so we really have no idea of the extent of the opponents fit or HCP. Furthermore, why should your partner play you for a void? From their perspective, you might well have the stiff spade ace or AK tight (if spades are, for example, 5-2-4-2 around the table), and be doubling on power. Thirdly, 4 need not be the pure preempt– but it often is, and catering to a non-preemptive hand when parter had 2, 3, splinters, etc. available is probably anti-percentage. All in all, I think that's the thematic answer to your questions; maybe 4 doubled is your last plus, but 1) You have no way to know that 2) It's rather unlikely. 5 rates to be at least 50%, and 4 is rarely off more than one (and can make), hence bidding is mandated. Whether to try 5 first is closer. I think it oversells my hand and diamond holding slightly, so I bid 5.
Sept. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The form of scoring might be useful for people to have (Imps, I suspect). Will edit comment if I wind up with an opinion.
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wow.
Sept. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did partner with a stiff in their suit and six hearts not make a move? With the North hand, I'd bid 3 over 2, and not feel bad about it.
Sept. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like it forcing, but at least one expert I know likes passing it with a 4x3 yarborough. I like your idea for 2 - 2 - 3NT, I'll implement it.
Sept. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Half credit granted, Alan, if only because “well you wrote it up” is a perfectly valid way to get at the answer :)
Sept. 8, 2015
1 2 3
.

Bottom Home Top