Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kyle Rockoff
1 2 3 4 5 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is very random, but do you know why this exists on a Northwestern Math Department page? I'm trying to figure out where the heck this came from!! (I'm a current Northwestern student in charge of our bridge club and and very confused when this was written and for what purpose).
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South's justification for how his double should be interpreted is clearly admitting to giving, and pursuing the sending of UI. You can't have a pseudo-agreement that “if I don't ask about a artificial bid, my takeout is treating the artificial bid as natural, and if I do ask, it's TO for the other suits”. There isn't indication that North was in on anything or aware of partner's tendency to do so, but South here is clearly greatly out of line with his reasoning.
There is enough justification here to call a director over. At the very minimum, even if North ethically deduced the correct defense and didn't take UI from partner's intended quick double on 1, south needs to be reprimanded and warned by a director that his intentions with his double are unacceptable and not legal in ACBL land.
June 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For the 1st line to succeed, it looks like you need either a stiff diamond honor to drop doubleton, or diamonds 2-2 (this works 66% of the time a priori). Clubs can split no worse than 4-1 and the contract is safe (occurs 96% of the time).

For the other line, you are playing for East to hold exactly KQx exactly. If the finesse fails, you need to hope clubs don't split 4-1 and a ruff can be taken (if this does not occur, you are back to hoping diamonds split 2-2, as the first line).

Does East's double make it likely he has both diamond honors? It seems more likely than a priori odds but is still uncertain. Clubs split 4-1 28% of the time.

So your line will depend how much you weight KQ being held with East. Personally, I feel that East's X is purely forced (they were in a game force after the 2NT bid), hence I don't feel the weight is enough to convince me to switch lines. I think it is reasonable to assume neither has a diamond void (or else one of them would have likely competed 5 or 6 vulnerable), and still unlikely that one of them has a singleton (after all at these colors, is 5 going down a 1,2 or 3 equitable for their game? I think they would have been more likely to risk 5, but it depends on if this is MPs or IMPs). I think I'm more likely to think diamonds are 2-2 than a priori, hence line 1.
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Heart shift feels right as an initial guess. Based on possible lead interpretations, I'm guessing declarer holds KJx in spades– with a doubleton, he would have unblocked. Hence declarer is probably something like 3-5-4-1. No need to unblock clubs for him. After a trump shift, it seems our best hope is hooking declarer's diamonds if partner hold any diamond honors.
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ahh 7 abstain was a mistake! Changing that to 7
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
#3. I've been working to promote more college bridge in the Chicago area at Northwestern. We've had fairly good success versus a few years ago, but unfortunately there are only a handful of serious youth/junior teachers building programs in the area. There's probably only one serious HS club in all of Chicago, despite there being, at least in my experience, a number of suburban high-schools in my area that would make good candidates for teaching. I'm frankly interesting in doing more to fix that, if anyone in the area wants to help take the initiative, feel free to reach out!
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I feel like this auction might give some merits to playing negative free bids through 3 interference, though I don't play the style nearly enough to know what exactly I'd be giving up by doing that. If anyone has any thoughts pls comment.
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was debating this with a partner. I was for passing, he was for bidding on the basis that with the opps showing a “limit raise 1NT” opener across a weak bid, they could be easily psyching/cheating you out of a game. 3 is a noisy bid (can be made on 0-11 HCPs, basically any hand with no invitational interest with the weak NT), and doesn't give you a whole lot of information on what is really going on here. North or East could very easily have 10HCPs here, making any sort of balance a huge winner or loser depending. As the results from the poll hint at, I think pass is the safest result for Long Run returns, given you likely can pick up a better partscore than most of the field anyways given the vulnerability, if your partner has a better hand than East.
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While you still have the ace of clubs as an entry to dummy, you need to develop your spade tricks to ditch diamond losers. Attack spades before pulling trump. You might or might not have time for a safety play in trump depending on how kind your opponents are when they win the spade.
May 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If NS play sound 3rd seat openers, North is obligated to double (with south's pass of 5D being forcing, letting North decide to compete or penalize).. If they play light openings in that seat, double by south should be permitted to show true opening values.
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, agree completely. But I'm more interested in an argument on either the “best” or at least most standard among players that know what their doing.
May 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Reasonable at matchpoints given north has a lot of jacks, and south's opening is lighter (vs 2/1) on average. At IMPs North should invite, and south should consider accepting having good 10's and 9's (certainly 100% of the time Vul).
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2NT-3-4-4-5-5-6-7
April 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In standard 2/1 I'm going to pass and then bid like a crazy person later. 5 probably isn't going anywhere and it's to hard to say who the heck I'm preempting by opening that high in 1st seat. I don't like 1 because it leads to too many “how high” rebid problems, especially in a competitive auction.

2/1 makes dealing with this kind of hand hard in my opinion. Other systems like precision usually have a better “lie” for these sorts of hands if you want to treat it like an opener (i.e. 2 or an unbalanced 1).
April 24
Kyle Rockoff edited this comment April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There might be punishment here for 2, but not enough information available to truly know if it's worth it. One of the benefits of playing 5 card preempts.
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Natural. Just learn Drury.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm guess 2 was not alerted (with no agreement about bids after an 1NT overcall), and hence 2 wasn't a cuebid. There seems to be a discrepancy on what systems EW play over a 2 overcall. If EW had the agreement that 2 was natural in that sequence, NS were entitled to that info before the lead.

Edit: If 2 was by agreement natural, then I tend to side with the ruling. South was entitled to that agreement on lead, even if he messed up their agreement. I think it's kind of cheap for South to complain though after fixing EW for a top with the “we had no agreement” argument for his 2 bid. This might merit a different score adjustment, if NS does not properly have a convention card filled out.
April 17
Kyle Rockoff edited this comment April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's still frankly insane if you are supposed to consider the opponent's potential revokes when making a claim. Forget what is the “fair” result without a revoke– on the lay of the cards without the claim declarer has a very reasonable line to 13 tricks with the penalty trick, assuming he does not play a diamond (which by weak assumption, has no logical reason to).
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Okay this has made me curious so I got out the Law– I think law 69B is probably the one that applies, based on the fact that the claim is made before the revoke discovered. Declarer has essentially claimed the lost of a trick that is not possible (having all trump left in hand), and hence the defense is only awarded one trick for the claim. Now, one trick is returned for the revoke. I think it is illogical to require declarer to lead a diamond so his opponent whom he informed had no trump can secretly overruff. Hence 13, tricks (unless I am wrong about the subtleties of the corrections for revokes during claim statements, or after the hand has ended). Maybe even then, this just requires TD discretion in score adjustment, but I think there's enough basis in the laws to warrant a correction to 13 tricks.
April 17
Kyle Rockoff edited this comment April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Without the revoke, it seemed you would have taken 12 tricks (conceding a high trump). You get one back for the revoke– I am not informed on the exact law numbers that apply, I'm sure someone here knows. It's interesting that a claim was involved– I think when the claimer is misinformed by the opponents, especially when in so clear an end position, the burden of stating a line on the claimer is given some leeway (especially if declarer's claim was logical in terms of the context in which he actually claimed, unaware of the revoke). I'm interested if there is any precedent for this from any national level calls.
April 17
1 2 3 4 5 6
.

Bottom Home Top