Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kyle Rockoff
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Could also easily just have honor empty 7th of diamonds with nothing, and balance knowing partner has points (assuming the opponents aren't incompetent enough to pass with game values).
Sept. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Something like Axx, Kxx, 10876432, - ? You don't want to overcall (not even for lead direction) and have no good major, you have too much defense after each major has been bid, but you're too unbalanced to justify passing.
Sept. 21, 2017
Kyle Rockoff edited this comment Sept. 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You also have 2 as takeout specifically for diamonds and spades, so I would imagine this would show at least club tolerance for your double (unless you had more specific agreements).
Sept. 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This question is from some practice with a partner. The question we had was more of the following bid by responder (which I'm about to post)– but I figured we might find one or two negative doublers that might complain, hence this poll.
Sept. 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm unable to edit the article at this point for some reason, so it's stuck there.
Sept. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is North's hand (if the ? it's your call kind of thing in the diagram didn't make that obvious).
Sept. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Woo congrats!! What an exciting match!!
Aug. 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't this the point of playing superaccepts? If you're only going to accept with strictly “invitational values”, then any 17 count max is going to just accept any invite anyways– no need for opener to jump to a higher level early and get you in trouble. I mean, generally unbalanced sub-invite shape is more preferred as a source of tricks (I would prefer most 6 counts 5-4-3-1 to this assortment), but if you're searching for extra marginal vulnerable IMP games (as you've listed as your form of scoring), then really any not-terrible 7 count should be accepting as well.
Aug. 24, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Um… no.
Aug. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well I was trying to create a hand to generate a discussion on the differences between 2, 2NT, and X by the passed hand, and what inferences they show to opener regarding spade support and the minor suits– but that effort apparently failed twice so I give up (and I've already generated proper opinions at this point).
Aug. 9, 2017
Kyle Rockoff edited this comment Aug. 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pass is a bid :-)
Aug. 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whoops actually, I did frame this problem wrong– the intent is to really find out what hand that would typically pass 1M do with this shape. I'm reposting the problem with Qxx of hearts instead of Kxx (thanks for the catch for all who commented– accidentally copied the hand I originally had in mind for the question a little bit off). Since no really answered the question I intended do to the wrong parameters, I'm going to repost now.
Aug. 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I will text message you– I am playing daylight pairs today.
July 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 works here– I've been trying to firm off my overcalls a lot recently, and have kind of come to the conclusion that I much rather have distribution over HCPs in this sort of position. I wanted to see if more people would pass and balance later than bid directly now, as it seems 2 really could be slammed hard.
July 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In a 24 board tournament, yes, you will see this kind of thing. The more boards in play, the less likely good bridge will lose out to random psyches.
July 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Raising partner with your doubleton is almost certainly wrong. Especially when you hold 2 other 5 card suits. X to show those suits– it's not really an overbid because you have tolerance for partner's suit and shortness in their suit, kind of like a responsive double.
July 8, 2017
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, 2017
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, 2017
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, 2017
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, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top