Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kit Woolsey
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 373 374 375 376
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul,

I am aware of the WBF and EBL policy, but I have never understood it. Before the bidding is completed of course no information should pass through the screen, and if a player is damaged because he does not get a correct explanation the score will have to be adjusted. However, once the bidding is completed, what harm can there be allowing clarification of the meaning of the bids by the declaring side? Since one of the players will be dummy, that information cannot possibly be of any value to him. By having the bids clarified the defending side gets the full disclosure they are supposed to get, and the result can be decided at the table rather than by directors or committees.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For starters, call the director and tell him privately what the problem is.

I think the director should then obtain the information which was written to your partner by your screenmate's partner and give it to you. This seems equitable to me, but some may disagree.
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even better, bid 2NT with “middle” range, and 3 or higher with “top” range.
8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Will everybody please get it through your heads that this is NOT an ethics issue. Ethics has nothing to do with it. The question is simply whether East's actions are legal actions given the UI he has received.
8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Looks to me like both North and South judged extremely well to get what on balance figures to be their optimal result.
11 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not going to be naming names, as this is subjective anyway. However, if you look at the participants in the current youth championships I'm sure you can find several such talented players.
18 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see why it couldn't happen in bridge. Look at the several players who became top-level players by age 16 or lower. That makes it clear that if one has the right sort of mind it doesn't necessarily require years of study and playing to become a bridge expert.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I accept the partnership agreements at face value. Partner is showing an odd number of keycards and a club void.

To be consistent with my actual hand, partner must hold the ace of eagles (the fifth suit).
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, giving up the natural 4NT is a tradeoff. But how often do you want that? It is right only when there are exactly 10 tricks in notrump and exactly 10 tricks in diamonds. That is rare, and even rarer that you can confidently predict this to be the case. For me a non-jump to 4NT is never natural unless one of us has previously bid notrump.
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4 is needed as natural. We are allowed to belong in hearts.

4 is RKC for diamonds. This is the cheapest available artificial bid above 4 of partner's suit, which makes it the RKC call in my agreements.

4NT is a slam try in diamonds. It is a substitute for 4, thus a “cue-bid” in spades. It is the only slam try in diamonds available, since both 4 and 5 are natural.
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
All the evidence points to declarer's shape being 4-3-3-3. If declarer has AK65 Qxx AJx Kxx, it is necessary to return a spade to establish partner's spades. If I do anything else, declarer can set up his ninth trick in hearts.

The problem with the above construction is that declarer would have ducked the first trick if that is the hand. So let's try a different construction. Clearly partner has a heart honor, since if declarer has QJx of heart he would have gone after hearts first. So perhaps KQ7x Qxx AJx KJx. A spade return isolates my hand from partner. If partner gives declarer a second spade trick to set up his spades that is declarer's ninth trick on a club guess. If not, declarer sets up the long heart and again has 9 tricks. But if I return a diamond and partner unblocks his jack of hearts when declarer leads the queen, that is 5 tricks for us. Declarer can and should counter this by playing a spade himself, but let's make him find that.
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Versus a 10-12 NT, it is extremely rare that opener is going to have a business redouble opposite a non-forcing Stayman call along with responder being able to sit. I think a reopening double of 2, which commits you to the 3-level, is a lot more dangerous. 6 tricks are easier to take than 9.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand that. If adopting that approach, isn't it better for 2S to be invitational with 4 spades, so opener can pass and play in 2S with an appropriate minimum?
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What is the logic which says that West would have been expected to lead a diamond from a 6-card suit?
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If opener had bid 2, then 2 by responder would show 4 spades (and likely a 5-card minor), so opener would know to get out of spades if opener has a doubleton. The logic is that with 5 spades and fewer than 4 hearts, responder would simply have bid 2 rather than Stayman.

Opposite a 2 rebid that logic no longer applies, since responder can have 5 spades and 4 hearts. If responder bid Stayman with 4-5 in the black suits he can then bid 3 (to play), with reasonable confidence of getting some support since opener has at most 6 cards in the majors.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mark,

I agree that I wasn't clear. I was referring to pairs who do play normal Stayman and transfers. Many such pairs play 2 followed by 2 as a light invite. This means that when they have the garbage Stayman hand, they may wind up in a 4-3 fit when they have a 5-3 fit, or a 4-2 fit when they have a 5-2 fit, when they bid Stayman with 5-4 in the majors. I believe the cost of this is greater than the gain on the light invite hands.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It doesn't look attractive to me. I don't want to give the opponents complete control of the hand, and that's what winning the ace of clubs does.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, opener cannot pass the 2 call. 2 is normal Stayman, but is assumed to deny GF values.

2 is Game-forcing Stayman

2 is to play, as is 2.

We don't have a way to invite with a 5-card major, unless willing to commit to the 3-level by bidding 2 and then 3 of the major.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks. Fixed.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would guess the mainstream interpretation is not natural. Of course, any agreement is reasonable.
Aug. 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 373 374 375 376
.

Bottom Home Top