Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Harald Berre Skjæran
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've shown a hand at least this strong by doubling twice and bidding 2. Passing now is clear to me.
June 29, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's a lot of hands where you can't afford to buypass 4 to show your spade control. And if that's all partner need to go slamming, you'll miss slams you'd want to bid. The one control you know partner is missing is spades. It's economical to show this with 4.
June 28, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The above is, of course, based upon a cuebidding style where you cuebid the lowest control first, not first round controls first. Then it's a very different matter (not playable in my mind).
June 27, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner denied a spade control by cuebidding 4. Without a spade control it's clear to sign off in 4, knowing we're off at least two spade tricks. Thus, cuebidding 4 doesn't only suggest a spade control, it promises a spade control.

Showing a spade control is important here, and it should take precedence over showing a diamond control - that can be done later, if needed.

If partner signs off in 4 now, it's clear to pass, IMO.
June 27, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can't sign off in 4, need to tell partner about my spade control; 4.
June 26, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OP doesn't say anything about what we play after 1x-1y-1NT. Some way to find out about a 5th diamond in partner's hand before inviting slam would be nice.

As it is, it's pretty close between 3 and 4NT. A total lack of intermediates indicates being conservative.
June 26, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think a 4 cue is pretty clear now. Too strong for a si ple raise to 5. Very lucky non-double by partner.
June 26, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unethical it's not. However, if this is your style, you have an implicit or explicit agreement, and 1 should be alerted.
June 23, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suppose I put a club with my spades before making my first call….
June 22, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With a former partner we played:
X=4+ , NOT 4
1=4+
1NT=4, 4+

The latter allowed you to show both suits at once and balance with 2 next after intervention.
June 22, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Prefer double shows 4+. Have played double denies some years ago.

Play double shows exactly 4 with my regular partner today.
June 22, 2013
Harald Berre Skjæran edited this comment June 22, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I prefer transfers here. When not playing transfers, I play double as exactly 44M.
June 21, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd put both percentages lower than that, maybe 25 and 5.
June 21, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Really? :-)
I'd always treat this hand as 20-21; clear upgrade IMO.
June 21, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why did I open 1 holding a 20-21 NT?
June 20, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4, game try.
June 18, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When he bid 2 he could have a club void. 3 of course showed 4+.
June 15, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The same applies to the team holding their opponents to 10 IMPs and scoring 0 themselves. They've most probably played much better bridge than the two teams scoring 190 IMPs over the same boards. But according to your logic, they should receive (close to) zero VPs.

That seems meaningless to me.
June 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So, if one team win 10-0 in IMPs, scoring 100% of the IMPs, they should get gloser to 20 (100%)og the VPs, whereas winning 100-90 should be like 11-9???
June 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner might be 3631 or 3532, can't he?
June 13, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top