Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Gerben Dirksen
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 30 31 32 33
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I fully share your gut feeling that Qx(x) onside is unlikely. To me any hand where South doubled with a singleton is unlikely, regardless which singleton. But unfortunately that are the hands where it makes a difference, so we have to assume he DID double with a singleton. So we are left with one big and two small singletons.

So we assess North's defense. After overtaking Q and cashing another, he plays another , which could be disastrous if declarer is not void in .

Holding Q3, he might hope partner has the singleton J.

Holding 32, partner needs K, or Q and declarer guessing wrong.

No way I would have guessed right, sorry…
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suppose you want to tell us that the defense started with three rounds of ?

Three possible lines:

1.Ruff high, cash A
2.Ruff high, cross in and finesse.
3.Ruff low, cross in and finesse.

Line 1 wins if North has Q singleton or xx.
Line 2 wins if North has Qx or Q singleton.
Line 3 wins if North has Q or Qx or Qxx.

So line 3 is better than line 2, and has a success probability due to free spaces of 8 / 19 = 42%.

Without prior information, dropping the Q singleton is 1/3 of 2-1 breaks = 78% /3 = 26%. The 5-2 break won't change this too much, so line 3 is superior.

NOTE: There is an odd chance that North has overcalled a 4-card suit and South will follow the 3rd , making line 3 even better.
Nov. 14
Gerben Dirksen edited this comment Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The other way around, signoff in a minor is 2 followed by 3m.
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1NT opening is one of the thinnest sections actually, as the only artificial responses are 2m and 4m. No need for too much science if opener is so well defined. Most of the 1NT part is when opponents interfere in some natural or artificial way.

The responses btw:
2: NF Stayman
2: Forcing Stayman
2: Signoff
2NT: Invitational
3: Invitational
3NT: Signoff
4:
4:
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South is not allowed to Dbl 2 rather than bid 2NT? Given that North is rather minimum it might just squeak through but 2 is not made yet.
Nov. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play this as Control Asking Bid. Opener bids 5 with no control, 5NT with second round control and 6 with first round control.
When we open 5 of something, that's trumps. Unless partner bids slam in his own suit.
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tough game sometimes. After 1NT - 3NT, lead, 3NT will probably make…
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I never realized it either, and will promise to not do better in the future.
Oct. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Important to realize is that with 18-19 balanced and you open 1m (2) p (p) ? you are in a poor spot, but so is basically everyone else.

Precision players are somewhat better off, but not too much. The auction 1 (2) p (p) is uncomfortable for them too, although more responder hands will have acted rather than pass.

For me this is not an incentive to move 18-19 NT hands to the 2-level. In fact I prefer to play a system where I can rebid 18-20 NT on the 1-level. This can be achieved in Precision, or Polish Club, or playing transfer responses to 1.
Oct. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Given that 6NT will give you almost all of the match points, shouldNorth risk the grand when he doesn't know about 10?
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What's wrong with 1? Opening this 1NT deserves a 2 response… With majors reversed, 1 - 1 - 2.
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don't know. Don't care. I try to use the bids between 2 and 5 to find out more. If partner has a four-card minor and both red Aces, slam rates to be rather good. Let's ask him.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If they go home, won't they have n sitouts where n is the number of rounds? And all other pairs won't have a sitout and they don't have to play against grumpy pair. Everybody wins.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Starting off, I don't like 18-19 balanced hands to be opened on the two-level, preferably not even rebid on the 2-level if partner has junk. Everyone responds light nowadays and 2NT on 18+5 is just… AAAARGH!

1 (2) p (p) 2NT should be natural and show this hand type. It is not a good-bad situation. Dbl is T/O and with the 18-19 NT, bid 2NT, maybe partner can raise.

If the auction stays on the 1-level it's easier:
1 (1) p (p) 1NT shows this, as does 1 (p) p (1) 1NT.

Leaves situations like:
1 (1) p (2) ?

With Kxx AJx AKxx KJx just PASS. Partner has two r fewer and couldn't bid. If he passes again, it's probably for the best.

2NT is best used as good-bad here. 3 showing “look again I don't need much partner” and 2NT as “I'm not allowing them to play 2”.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You have to disclose the agreement and should not speculate if partner forgot or not. On the question if it is on with a passed hand, the right response would have been “undiscussed”.

If you are going to play partner for fit, then you have to disclose it shows a fit. If it didn't, then without any written proof the director will rule MI.

Trying to cover both bases “it shows a fit but maybe partner forgot” puts opponents in an impossible situation.

I was in a similar situation once. We had agreed to play that a 2 overcall of 1NT would be natural rather than majors by a passed hand, on the basis that partner would probably have already opened 2 for both majors.

So looking at a 2-3-3-5 distribution, partner passes, righty opens 1NT, pass, pass, 2. Partner most likely forgot. We were playing with screens.

What I did was bid 2, which surprised LHO who had read 2 natural on the convention card.

So he asked and I told him that I'm playing partner for forgetting the agreement listed on the convention card.

If I would have been wrong, of course that would have been expensive, as we would probably play 2x in a 3-2 fit. That's the price of uncertain agreements.

After this episode we deleted this agreement again, even though it made sense, theoretically.
Sept. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Which creates a kind of game theory problem at the other table. Knowing Meckwell play 14-16 NT openers and looking at 14 HCP, hearing 1 1 1N (12-14) 2N, do you decline the invitation or accept in the knowledge that if the other table opened this 1NT, the other table will be in 3NT?
Sept. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would probably give NS 7, EW 6. Then fine West 20% of a top for not calling the director earlier. After all, if he had, it would have been A+/A+. If there are now still some excess MP to go around, this is subtracted from the loud table so that everything adds up to 100% again.
Sept. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So here is the background story:

I don't have the hand as I wasn't there but a top level expert reached the situation described above. One of the opponents was significantly weaker than the three other players at the table.

After long tanking declarer guessed the situation. After which the stronger of the opponents called the director because he felt that declarer had been tanking for the purpose of getting a read.

Dummy then asked said opponent if he was accusing his partner of unfair methods… This was also not an optimal move, and I must feel for the poor director.

At the end, everyone left the table safely and unharmed. But still not a nice situation.
Sept. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Play problem:

K106
J32
JT32
AKQ

AJ4
AKQ
KQ54
JT4

2NT - 6NT. Opening lead is 4th best Club, his partner showing an odd number (unfortunately that was very revealing for EW). You drive out the A (West has it doubleton) and cash all non- winners.

You tried cashing the first to make opponents reveal something but West discards a and the 13th , whereas East discards a . After this both follow the six rounds of and (not very nice of them!)

Now what?
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hello John, I always try to use movements where everyone plays all the boards. There are some rare cases where pairs miss a board group.
Web Mitchell would be OK but 13 rounds with 32 boards would be a no go for me.

Before we had a duplication machine we would use the first round for manual duplication if we had more tables than rounds.

Monty: I don't get “these are one winner movements, not perfect.” We always play one winner movements (arrow switch in case of Mitchell). How else would you know who won?
Sept. 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 30 31 32 33
.

Bottom Home Top