Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Harald Berre Skjæran
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree.
April 8, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Deleted after OP changed.
April 6, 2013
Harald Berre Skjæran edited this comment April 7, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My thoughts exactly.
April 4, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 is logically a natural GF. But the suit should be longer and/or stronger. 4m are cuebids, accepting hearts and inviting slam.

I'd bid 4NT as a natural quantitative bid. IMO I'm too strong for 3NT, both due to my general high card strength and good interiors. The T is often a great card too.
April 3, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I played this switch with a former partner a few years ago: 2NT=22-24 and 2=20-21NT or a suited strong hand.

2-2M was a natural sign off vs 20-21, 2 was a waiting bid containing most GF hands and s/o hands not suited for 2M or transfers.

2NT3 was transfers showing (5)6 card suits, opener accepted the transfer with 20-21, thus allowing us to play 3m.

3/ was GF transfers showing a good 6-card suit. Opener accepted to invite slam in responders suit, else bid his on suit/3NT/4M.

The main advantage was the ability to stop in 2M. But we also had an easier way to show a GF responding hand with 4M5+m through the minor suit transfers than standard methods.

Kokish has never been in my bidding methods, since I've generally played some version of Multi 2 with one (or two) strong NT interval(s).
This also let 2-2x-3NT show some hand with nine or ninish tricks.
April 3, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As far as I remember Esko told Peter what he would lead before Peter told him his hand.
April 3, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would NOT bid on the assumtion that pard could bid 4 with that garbage. Obviously Dano knew, and needed two KC to bid slam.
April 3, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I wasn't going to bid 6 vs one KC, I'd not have asked. Thus, there's only two possible actions now IMO; raise to 6 or abstain.
April 2, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Never played 3 as weak here. This hand seems too strong for me, though. Thus, I bid 4.
March 31, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Reading the interview this morning, I never realisere Sabine used the phrase split score. And it's very obvious that she was talking about weighted scores.

As for the ruling, this is in fact a very close decision. As a TD/AC I suppose I would have ruled as the AC under ACBL regulations. Anywhere else I'd have assigned a weighted score. Probably slightly above 50% down one.
March 29, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It doesn't take a genius to find out that north has 5+ spades here. And if you had explained what 2 showed, you'd have avoided much of what happened. Sure, north asking questions out of turn is bad. And there obviously was UI present. But nothing that should prevent south bidding spades. Your bidding tells him that his side holds at least seven spades between them, more often eight.

If you can't accept that people disagree with you, you shouldn't post here. And I really dislike your tone.

You should also accept the fact that Americans in general are unaccustomed to defending Multi. And have problems in bidding sequences that would seem basic even for club players here in Europe.
March 29, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ovunc; if you held the south hand and watched the actual bidding sequence unfold, how many spades would you expect partner to hold? And just forget the fact that he made a seemingly stupid double originally; most people would have overcalled 2 for sure.
March 29, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This really happened. The story is true.
March 29, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the TD got this one right. It seems clear that NS had no experience defending Multi, but that doesn't make a difference to the ruling.

Holding 10 hcp vs a partner who doubled 2, pass isn't a logical alternative IMO.

If you had given a correct explanation of your partners 2 bid, it wouldn't be much problem for south to figure out that north would be a huge favourite to hold 5+ s and a singleton heart. Thus, bidding 3 (or even 4) seems clear.

Playing an (in ACBL) unusual convention, the onus on your side to explain your bids properly is even more important than normally.
March 29, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I ruff and give partner a club ruff.
March 27, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a great story, although it's not a true finesse.

A teammate on my 2nd division team in our national league, Lars Eide, many years ago became declarer in a 3NT contract after LHO opened 1. Dummy had the singleton 4 and Lars had a 7-card heart suit in hand. After the lead he looked at eight certain tricks and no real play for the ninth trick. However, when he lead the 2 from hand to the second trick, LHO gave count with the three, dummy winning the trick with the four! Contract made.
March 20, 2013
Harald Berre Skjæran edited this comment March 20, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with what you say about having standard agreements and not assuming attitude or count in many situations.

However, when both partners know playing for a ruff/uppercut/promotion is an alternative, laying down an ace asks for attitude; partner discourages if he wants you to return the suit he's known to be void in, encourages if he doesn't want that. Regardless of his holding in the suit you casper the ace.

If you innstead play the king, you ask for count. Thus you know if you can cash another trick before playing for the ruff/uppercut/promotion.

I really think this is expert standard.
March 20, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is standard practice among top players over here. I'd expect most top players I might sit down with or againsr to assume partner would be on the same page without discussion.
March 20, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd have played the A, not K. Partner would then discourage with a possible trump promotion, else encourage whatever his holding. Playing the king asks for count.

With partner showing an Odd nummer of diamonds, I'd expect him to have five, declarer having three small along with two small spades is really unthinkable.

I'll thus return a small spade now, hoping for a promotion.
March 16, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry Rigal also thinks it's natural. To me it's clear that it's natural. And I don't play short suit game tries.

The hand type where it is most probable that you'll be loking for slam with after a 1-level opening and a single raise is a 2-suiter, not a 3-suiter. That's a hand type where honors in your two suitable and side aces in partners hand is helpful.

I strongly prefer to get this message across with one bid. And not go through a help suit game try and make a slam try thereafter. And it's very easy for partner to evaluate his honors this way.
March 16, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top