Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kyle Rockoff
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, 2017
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, 2017
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, 2017
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, 2017
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, 2017
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, 2017
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, 2017
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, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2NT-3-4-4-5-5-6-7
April 25, 2017
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, 2017
Kyle Rockoff edited this comment April 24, 2017
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, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Natural. Just learn Drury.
April 21, 2017
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, 2017
Kyle Rockoff edited this comment April 17, 2017
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, 2017
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, 2017
Kyle Rockoff edited this comment April 17, 2017
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, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm thinking 2NT is a balanced invite (maybe with a diamond feature decent enough to have not enough interest defending at this vulnerability, and stoppers in the majors), XX should be value showing, partner can now double for penalty in wherever they scramble to, rebids should just be 11-17 HCPs, with offensive diamond strength. Really just an agreement question, so this is all just my take.
April 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wasn't actually polling about preempting this hand, but opening 2. Maybe I'm just playing too many strong club systems right now, but with 4 losers I think it's a pretty accurate description. I opened the hand this way with one of my collegiate teammates we had a very smooth auction to 6 with the strong opening (playing 2 forced with cheaper minor for the bust hands: 2-2-2-3-4-4-4-4NT-5-5NT-6). You need the right agreements about 2 obviously (i.e. that it might not be about HCPs in 4th seat) but it worked very nicely.
April 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yep– posted this from my phone with bad wifi– it's fixed now.
April 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about… by agreement? When I play 3-card raises in standard, I personally prefer to have the agreement to play spiral raises, where a 2NT by responder asks partner if they raised their suit on 3 or 4 card support. Without agreement, doing it with two honors is probably fine at matchpoints, but I think responding 1NT is clearer if partner will not expect the 3 card raise.
April 7, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top