Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jack Spear
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 138 139 140 141
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with Richard that we must act as if we did not hear the “5-5 minors” explanation, and respond to an artificial 3 inquiry (stayman) with an artificial 3 response (no major).
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We cannot be without methods, since double showed at least a weak NT. Double of 2 shows values, and East's pass-or-correct response will clarify for everyone.

Even if this is somehow undiscussed, and East passes to show long 's, my partner will not pass without his own penalty pass. Bridge logic–this hand cannot pass which might allow 2 to be passed out.
June 24
Jack Spear edited this comment June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4. Partner has 9 major suit cards, so he has the shape and we have the AK fitting well, plus promising values everywhere. If partner cooperates over 4, he will not be disappointed with our values. Don't underestimate this powerful, control-rich collection by counting points. A meaningful simulation now would be with this actual hand opposite 4-5 major suit hands with 9-12hcp (which would cooperate over 4, perhaps cuebidding the K.)
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like declarer's line of an immediate diamond to the 9, making the dreaded club switch more difficult if losing to the J, while increasing the positional value of AJX when the switch is from West.
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Without a reasonable opportunity for partner to bid the grand (no knowledge of Q) bidding the grand yourself is not so unreasonable…you get to add 2-2 's when pard holds 2-3 's plus 6-5 hands to David's “crude first approximation” which assumed a singleton club.

Nothing to be ashamed of…approximate percentages okay at-the-table.
June 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Any 4-2 break is 13 tricks opposite 2-3 's with 2-2 's. (Also, partner won't bid seven with KXXXXX AKXXX not knowing about Q or 4th .)
June 20
Jack Spear edited this comment June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I appreciate Larry's observations regarding the high level of popularity of ELC at the expert level in the U.S. Another observation might be the low level of popularity for the Bridge World Standard set of agreements.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let me be sure I understand what partner should infer from 4…4-2-1-6 with good intermediates offering partner the choice of three final contracts…yes, I got it.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pass. Seems easy at matchpoints.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4. Completing the description of my hand…can't imagine bidding anything else.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We have arrived. Our ruffing value playing in 's is attractive, while the Q opposite partner's maximum length of three is not attractive for playing in notrump. Our club length is likely opposite partner's doubleton. Partner may have thought he wanted to play 4 or 3NT, but I think he will like our decision when I table this dummy.

Thanks for posting.
June 18
Jack Spear edited this comment June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Joe, I like your ideas, but wouldn't Spear/Herrmann be a better name? :)
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing 4H P/C is not silly. Having this option available can be an advantage when it comes up, while 2oM followed by 4oM is available as a signoff. 2oM followed by 3oM can be played as forcing. (This never comes up, but what if it did?)

Having the option of using no artificiality with the minors can be an advantage, not to say 4/4 or more complex useful agreements should be abandoned.

This agreement obviously allows 3 and 3 to be natural and forcing.
June 17
Jack Spear edited this comment June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I really wanted to bid 3 to test my theory that the opps never penalize this weak preempt, with no apparent limit to how hopeless my hand can be. And 3 actually has the merit of taking up meaningful bidding space.
June 16
Jack Spear edited this comment June 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great set of hands that I missed–when I watch, the hands are usually flat. Thanks for posting.
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Most of the analysis suggests 7 available tricks declaring diamonds, with 3-4 tricks available on defense against 4. Getting doubled in 4 seems unlikely because the opponents seem to be committed to bidding 4, and should be wary of the South hand bidding at the 4-level vulnerable. But the table result was -500 in 4 doubled with 4 down multiple tricks…North hand was T JXXX X JXXXXXX
June 9
Jack Spear edited this comment June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Other agreements for 2 and 3 are not without merit. I like 3 to show 5+ with invitational value, solving the critical problem for partner of when to raise with three-card support. With the infrequent hand of 6+, accuracy is lost in the agreement trade-off, but both 1 and 4 remain available.
June 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2. Thanks for the accurate description.
June 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK, all is forgiven.
June 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes.
June 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 138 139 140 141
.

Bottom Home Top