Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Harald Berre Skjæran
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here I prefer transfers. I don't play that with my regular partner, though.
May 23, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4NT, natural. Too strong for 3NT.
I'd bid 4 with a strong spade raise.
May 23, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
6NT just made would expect to score below average.
May 22, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With a former partner we splitted high with two honors, low with three.
May 19, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand why you sat in 4 vul vs not….
May 18, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The 3 was according to partnership agreement.

If your agreement is MUD (middle-up-down), you'd play the four next, to show exactly 432 in the suit.

If you lead high-low from an odd number, you play the deuce next. With that agreement I prefer to lead the 4 from 432, to make it easier for partner to read at trick one.

If you play low-high to show an odd number, anyone I know lead the lowest card.
May 17, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If low-high showed an odd number of cards, I'm pretty sure the lead would have been the deuce…
May 17, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This sequence is very different from (1) x (xx) pass, where pass just denies a clear direction (no preferred suit).

Here, partner ‘often’ has a trap pass, and should be able to pass for penalty also after the redouble. Partner need to make a bid if he doesn't hold a penalty pass.
May 13, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Three bullets, three trumps and a doubleton spade is not too much to hope for when partner raises my sign off.
May 12, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Close between 1 and 3 IMO.
May 11, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Strongly dislike 2, 3 and 4NT. Hard to distinguish wich is the sort call; they're all really bad IMO.
Prefer 1 in stead of 1, but that's a matter of style and agreements.
May 10, 2013
Harald Berre Skjæran edited this comment May 12, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you're partner should rebid 2NT, not 3. Then you could bid 3, and it might be possible to reach 6, though it's by no means obvious.
May 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, I strongly prefer 3 to be forcing here.
May 8, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wouldn't declarer duck trick one if partner held this hand?
May 7, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A negative double at this level doesn't promise length in the two unbid suits. It's only card-showing, and could be 3334/3433/2434/2344, but also includes hands with 54 in the minors.

I voted 4NT=minors, but to me it's a close decision between this and natural. Keycard for spades is clearly the least needed option IMO.
May 7, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To me there's no doubt 4 is a cuebid in support of clubs.
May 7, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I really don't understand this. The double of 5 is not a command, it's only trying to help partner on lead unless he's got an obvious lead. Not leading a diamond honor here is beyond me.
May 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I really don't understand why natural isn't an option here. I voted lebensohl (GB2N is a better name). Scramble wouldn't be an option here for me, using responsive doubles. With hearts and a minor, I bid hearts.

A natural 2NT would be my second option.
May 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm sorry Sabine - I forgot to congratulate you with your great achievement in the Vanderbilt. That was truely a great effort for you and your team!
May 2, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You've got this about Norway wrong, Sabine. There was no women competitions at all in Norway back then, or earlier. Norway withdrew from international women competition, and that happened earlier, around 1980, if I remember correctly. The decline in membership had nothing to do with this. And it didn't happen over the night, it dropped over time from around 16,000 members in the mid-80's to less than 10,000 today. It seems like the trend has stopped now, and we're looking at a slightly increasing number of members this year.
May 2, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top