Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kyle Rockoff
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If we're concerned double for t/o is wrong because 4 might go down on wastage/trump control issues (long spades with the s), then I think pass IS an option. Pass does the better job at keeping spades in play. 5 leaves the last guess to us. Partner can likely inference our shortness from her holding, and we hold min HCPs. Idk maybe dbl is as good or better. I don't think any of the three options currently voted for is that off mark– each has their own merits.
Feb. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South doesn’t need to stretch to open 2 with a convenient GF rebid. 2 is a slight overbid. Everything after 5 is insane (and perhaps more prior is questionable).
Feb. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I’d prefer to give up the natural 2N here illo of t/o, and have a pen double, but no strong preferences. I think t/o probably doesn’t need to be heart oriented.
Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Depends on your agreements I feel like. With regular partners I don't play pen doubles in direct seat, so in balancing seat we'll balance on really as light as a K at IMPs with shape (if responder doesn't have a bid, we have on average half the points, so a 5-5 3 count has play across any bal opening hand, even if we're vul). Undiscussed, it's not unreasonable to expect a min strength requirement so I probably wouldn't pull it undiscussed or you might defend a stupid 1Nx making 2 or 3 in a situation like this. I'm not sure what an expert standard minimum strength requirement would be here. Are we really expecting partner to have 2-3 defensive tricks here for their conventional double in time to set up s?
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You know 100% polls don’t exist Don :-).
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe you need both 3-2 spades and 3-2 diamonds (overtake the J on the Q). But in that case, 6 makes. I think you probably need to cater to diamonds being 4-1 or worse, else you have a trash board anyways.
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4 jump seems excessive to me. 5 loses, 9 high, I think 3 gets the point across. Now there is room to cuebid before KC and end up at least in a suit. NT with the south hand seems reckless when North is likely bidding more on fit than power. The heart knocks out our entry. If we still had one I’d try for the two or three suit squeeze on East who likely holds the Q. Pretty sure we just will have to take down 2 at this point? Unless east has exactly Qxx of clubs and a doubleton diamond, then I guess the endplay for -1 might exist. But is it worth going for -1 weighting against down more than 2? I think the hope is that 6 goes down 2 with QJxx or H9xx offside for a push.
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My eyes glossed over the suit and I missed the 6th club. I was really confused people were jumping on a 5 cd club suit before! I don’t like the 2N rebid without protection in diamonds. We have tricks but lots of losers. I prefer 3/1>1N>2N/1.
Feb. 11
Kyle Rockoff edited this comment Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Debbie: I just meant that 3m direct is invitational, through the relay is constructive-ish, NF. A different set of agreements is useful here. I think with most partners, I guess would just bid 3N direct to play and not bother to to deduce some convoluted undiscussed sequence by starting through 2N, given the two-suited overcall.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 then 2s seems like the natural way to pattern out. I’m usually all for a NT bid, but perhaps this hand has too many flaws to ignore your concentration of values.
Feb. 10
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is this a jab at negative free-bids in a minor in general (i.e. do you think 1-(1)-2m or 1M-(2)-2 is equally unplayable), or is this specifically an objection based on the both minors piece in 1 (related to finding the om fit)?
Feb. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice
Jan. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wanted to poll the legitimate call. Robot raised on the 4333 Yarborough, which I thought was amusing. Wanted to pull a sanity check :-).
Jan. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems like an interesting event, but agree with Matthew and Christian above. A little easier for me to get to USBC since I still have places to crash in Chicago. Would have been useful for an announcement earlier for young professionals to plan out vacation days and etc (which isn’t something a lot of new college grads have until a few years of experience). I question partially if I should go because of a) unknown expenses if you accidentally qualify, and b) I might have to cancel already booked reservations for Montreal and other later half of the year tournaments to make room for all the extra days of travel and play. Not 100% unreasonable but I think it disadvantages a significant portion of the target audience.
Jan. 25
Kyle Rockoff edited this comment Jan. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If pass was forced by runouts, that information should be included. If not I can think of several abstains based on several other second round actions.
Jan. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Upon reviewing the new charts again in freetime, I think the sequence is actually not necessarily illegal but undefined. Not natural (10 cards in two suits). Not purely destructive (it contains at least an average strength hand if nothing else). Not necessarily a Psych (certainly not an A more or less than expected for a 14+-17 NT). Weird.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it doesn’t meet the ACBL definition of a natural NT, but I would also find it extremely insulting to request an adjustment based on 1N being an Psyche. HCPs aren’t everything. The features that make this bid not natural is we have 10 cards in two suits. It also doesn’t meet the ACBL def for “strong” because they go strictly by HCPs (minus an exception for 5 controls and trick-taking strength). I think connecting HCP evaluation to the law is terrible judgment personally. I think higher level players tend to use a myriad of different hand evaluation schema.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We have an ART 1N rebid to confirm 3cd support over 1, to confirm tolerance before continuing to pattern out. 2N rn for us is a solid source of tricks and inv, which potentially could be improved. I guess swapping 2N and 3 is possible in this case, since the source of tricks is typically exclusively minors, and 3/2N gives more room, but I haven’t particularly thought about it.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That accurately describes our methods. I find bridge is frequently a game of pessimism :-). I think equity is probably against it at MPs as any negative weights towards a zero, but at IMPs passing felt like a safe gamble. -180 is likely only lose 2 if wrong. If it's a misfit any plus is a huge benefit. Overtricks definitely can hurt I suppose, definitely the worse if we can actually get out in safe 2-level contract. Partner's average HCPs is approx. 12, assuming responder's pass puts him in the 0-8 range. I can't see defending a 20-20 1N where it seems likely no one has an 8cd fit and I have a source of tricks as a dramatically losing board. A bit of a gamble? Sure. Maybe I'm completely wrong.
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 can be bid on as few as 3, because opener rarely has exactly 4. Responder’s rebids are not canape, only opener’s.
Jan. 19
.

Bottom Home Top