Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kit Woolsey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, North's pass of 3 was a gamble. But every bid made at the bridge table is a gamble. When partner opens a strong 1NT and you bid 3NT on xx xx AQxxxx Kxx, as I'm sure you would, you are gambling that the opponents can't take the first five tricks in one of the majors and that the diamonds will behave decently enough to let partner take 9 tricks. We believe this is a good bet, but it is a gamble nevertheless.

You might think North's pass of 3 was a terrible bet. Perhaps you are right. But even if it was a terrible bet it was an action which had logic behind it and which could have succeeded, which means it was not an “egregious error”.
June 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North might have bid 5. But South has a clear game bid. It is just too likely that the hands will mesh well or a key suit will be favorable for South to risk missing a vulnerable game.
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Duck first trick, win heart continuation, and cash 3 diamonds, ending in my hand and retaining the fourth round diamond entry in dummy, Then I exit with a heart.

I will almost certainly know what is going on in the heart suit from what happens. If the hearts are 5-3 and West runs the hearts, I can pitch only clubs from both hands. West will be forced to lead a spade, which gives me a free shot to guess right. If I don't get the spades right, I'll have to guess the end position.

If the defense works out to have East win the third round of hearts and it appears that West has 5 hearts, I'll go up ace of clubs on a club shift and lead a spade to the jack. If this loses I'll still make if the king of clubs was actually onside, assuming the hearts were 5-3.
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm talking about deal #2. She should have played her spades queen-king, to get a club shift. She doesn't need a heart ruff.
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are missing the most important option:

Under absolutely no circumstances will I reverse with a 4441 hand.
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem with saying “but I occasionally psych this bid” in your natural but forcing explanation is that you would have to say the same thing the 98% of the time you aren't psyching it. That will just throw the opponents off, since they will be worrying that you have psyched.

Fortunately, with online bridge there is a solution to this problem. If your LHO thinks you might be psyching, he can ask you if you have a history or tendency of making this kind of psych. You then give him an honest answer, whether you are psyching or not, and the game goes on. With online bridge, as opposed to f2f, neither his partner nor your partner can hear the question being asked since it is asked via private chat, so there is no UI for either partnership.

It is true that you would know he likely has a heart stack when he asks the question. But that is the risk he takes with his question, and isn't that serious a problem.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's what I was referring to if you knew enough to exploit his failure to play the 10 from 10x.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think that is such a good idea. The problem is East will win an shift to a spade. When he sees the results of this, when he is in with his king of clubs it will be clear what is going on.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just say the same thing you would have said had your lead been from 109x(x). That is what they are entitled to. If they go wrong, they would have gone wrong anyway knowing what your agreements are, just as they would have gone right if your lead had been from 109x(x).
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since we play a limited opening bid we don't need to distinguish between a mini-splinter and a full splinter, so we play 3M+1 shows unspecified void, 3M+2 through 3M+4 shows specified singleton.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cashing the ace works when either opponent has KQ doubleton, or when LHO has stiff king or queen – 4 combinations.

Leading low, planning on playing RHO or 10-doubleton (with or without an honor) works when RHO has K10, Q10, 105, or 106. Also 4 combinations.

If the indications from the bidding are that RHO is more likely to have length, cashing the ace looks clear.

If you think you know whether or not RHO will play the 10 from 10x, Q10, or K10 if you lead low, you may be able do better by exploiting this knowledge.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Anne didn't need a heart ruff. If she had played her spades in the proper order you would have shifted a club, and all would have been fine.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Full disclosure is not debatable. Please forget about laws and regulations involving alerts. They are written for f2f play, not for online play where self-alerting is available.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is the “other” option.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is no “normal” way to cash the spades. West is planning on cashing them both, and the order of cashing them is suit-reference as best as possible within the context of the situation, since only two possible signals can be given. There is nothing more complicated than that.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I always have my explanation typed in before I make my bid. Very simple, and avoids the possibility of an opponent acting before knowing what my bid means.

I don't think this takes any extra time, since I'm going to have to type my explanation in anyway before my opponent bids. In fact, I think it is faster, because my opponent doesn't have to wait for the explanation – it comes with the bid. Clearly if I alert but don't include an explanation my opponent should wait until the explanation is given before he bids. If he doesn't do so that conveys the UI that he doesn't care what my bid means.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you have to ask whether or not you should alert the call, the answer is yes. That is how certain you should be to not alert an agreement which you and your partner have, or an inference which could be drawn based on some partnership agreement. For example, if you could have made a support double and didn't do so that should be alerted – not that you deny 3-card support, but that you had a support double available. However, if your partnership has the agreement that you always make a support double with 3-card support, then you alert and explain that your action denies 3-card support.

To put it very simply: I there is any doubt, alert and explain. How difficult is that to understand?
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On deal 1, partner's 8 of hearts is clear suit-preference for spades. I lead the 8, saying I don't want a spade back. Partner will have no trouble figuring out that means I can ruff a heart. I'm not leading the king of spades, as partner could have stiff ace.

On deal 2, partner's order of spade plays (king then queen) is clearly suit-preference, so I'm not leading a club. If declarer has a doubleton heart, I should play a heart. If declarer has a singleton heart, I should play ace and a trump.

Which is the case? If declarer has a doubleton heart, partner should have ducked the first round of hearts since partner has the count. However, if declarer has a singleton heart partner has 3 hearts, and partner should have passed 1 rather than bid 1. So, partner has made a mistake, and I have to guess which mistake partner has made. I'll guess the mistake was in the bidding, since that might be a judgment call – the defense of ducking the heart does not involve judgment.
June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As far as I know, nobody has written a pamphlet describing alert procedures and regulations for online play. So I'll write one.

Everybody ready? Here is is:

Alert and explain any bid which has a meaning or inference which wouldn't otherwise be obvious.

That is the entire pamphlet.

Oh, wait. That is exactly what Michael said.
June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The law isn't to be changed to you telling the opponents what your hand is. What the law says is that you tell your opponents the meaning of your call as you understand your partnership agreements to be. That is what full disclosure is about.
June 13
.

Bottom Home Top