Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kyle Rockoff
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My initial thought is it might have some positive variance at matchpoints? The problem is when you encounter a situation where everyone else in the room as advancer, knows their partner's major and you don't.

I don't think it really makes responder's life any harder, given they still have a support cuebid available with the interference. It mostly just make's advancer's life harder, especially if competing in the major suit fit is important in the auction.

The real question is, does concealing the major makes it harder on declarer if they win the contract? Without data, not sure anyone could answer, though my prediction would be the extra information which suit the 2NT holds is a lot more important for partner of the 2NT bidder for defense than declarer. Much like 1M-2M michaels, declarer still has the information advantage.

My guess on reflection is that the bid is at least a slight loser versus a standard unusual 2NT in that situation, although it is very much playable, at least.
June 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 F1R tends to imply a 5th heart (opener would reasonably also show 4 hearts at this point in response if they had so).

2 is natural NF.

2 would be natural NF (probably 4+ clubs, 4 hearts).
June 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
More like, “trying to exhaustive of all possible choices in the auction and objections to the first bid in the poll”. I've left options out, and been wrong before.
June 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice yeah. Scramble the diamonds around the table a bit, and cashing the Ace of clubs might be the right play in the slam ;-) (@David diamonds did break 3-2 on the deal– see the hand diagram on page 6).
May 21, 2018
Kyle Rockoff edited this comment May 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
standard agreements– a weak raise.
May 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
About 1/3 found slam in clubs or NT, 1/3 were in 3NT making 6, and hilariously, 1/3 were in 3NT making 7 (Looks like 2 other pairs also found Daniel's brilliant line of play).
May 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1-(3)-3 (I don't understand how you don't bid 3 the first time– you're already limited as a PH and this hand becomes a max with shortness)
4 (huge hand with a fit) -4NT (let's start driving, we appear to have the perfect hand for partner– huge presumed double-fit with controls)
5-whatever- 6
May 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To answer the question though– partner's problem is obviously s. Want to raise s eventually. To finish the given auction, mine would be:

1-1
1-2
2

Planning to raise diamonds next round if room below 3NT.
May 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I prefer to open this hand pattern 1 (at least with those spots).
May 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hrm… I think advertising it as any of these ways could be right, depending on the audience.

1 and 3 are geared more towards finding recruiting serious tournament players, whereas 2 and 4 are geared more towards the social bridge setting.

I think to get people in the door, talking about how complicated the game is not the way to go. I think discussing the specifics of bidding as the first thing to teach falls into this category of complicatedness.

However, while the complicated stuff isn't what gets people in the door, it's certainly the draw to why people keep at it once they've grasped the basics. Bidding, declarer play and card combinations, defensive play, system design, duplicate scoring and tournaments are all awesome aspects that should at least be mentioned in passing– just not thrown on someone all at once.
May 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think getting bridge into elementary, middle, and high school's is more important than anyone at the ACBL is actually stressing.

I wasn't able to get into bridge, despite wanting to learn for several years prior after reading Louis Sachar's “The Cardturner”, until around the end of my senior year of high school.

Looking at the problems of recruiting on college campus, from my experience running my school's bridge club, I think true problem actually stems from this non-existent pre-college player base. I hear stories all of the time from people about how they learned in college from being dragged in by so-and-so as a 4th, and that's how it all started for them. That kind of atmosphere just doesn't exist anymore. Most colleges are lucky to get 2-3 tables on a good night in the campus student center, and this is only happening maybe once a month, at the only weekly student game on campus.

The about of support for bridge at the the elementary/middle/high school levels (except for a few thriving programs like SiVY or Atlanta youth bridge) is pathetic. If something is to be done, the ACBL or others interested really need to work on hacking into this player base.
May 3, 2018
Kyle Rockoff edited this comment May 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After much discussion with others (https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/whats-this-double-2-5mvsa1xo5p/), the conclusion I've come to is that the second double clearly denies 4+ s (after all, partner could bid hearts freely to the TO X which showed 4 hearts). The real question was, what does the second double actually verbalize. I think the conclusion from discussion on the related article was that the X describes a variety of hands with values and responsive shape. The top vote was for it to be read as “responsive”, though in many ways it also seemed to overlap with a “values” definition (primary difference being values tended to imply more balanced hands, responsive tended to imply more shapely hands without 4 hearts). The one thing it was not agreed as was penalty.
April 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah I'm liking Kit's line better now– taking the club finesse really hurts your entries and the information of the club holding doesn't significantly help a lot (conditional you are playing opps good enough to duck winning the K of clubs in tempo).
April 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh that's true, shoot I didn't account for that. If West ducked then we're going down if I concede the diamond at trick 3… Ouch. Hrm… If West is good enough to duck then we're in a very terrible situation. West might duck from Kxx or Kxxx. Probably doesn't have Kx.

Doing low relies completely on clubs and Ks being onside.

Other alternative for the club line is K, to the A, K (pitch a ), and close your eyes and lead a club. (To do rely on the finesse, you have to do K, A, and duck a high club?). Neither is super thrilling. I think conditional on knowing the first club held, odds favor doing the club finesse over the diamond finesse (despite the potential disappointment to come), but still not as high as my odds before if West can be ducking the first club.
April 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well the easiest way this makes is if clubs cooperate– ignoring entries you'd have 6 clubs, 3 hearts, 2 spades, and the ace of diamonds (and maybe an extra trick if Qx of spades drops or the diamond finesse works). If clubs don't work, I think you need Q10 doubleton of spades to drop.

If clubs split 4-1, and the diamond finesse is on, endless entries permitting, you could pitch a diamond on the 2nd spade and still make if the diamond finesse is on.

Looks like we can't have the best of both worlds and finesse clubs again, and unblock spades, and not loose a diamond (only ways back to dummy are overtake K, low diamond to QJ, or As, but if you go back and clubs break bad with the A you can't cleanly cash spades and pick up the finesse).

Diamond finesse looks like a 52%-ish line (cash K of spades to unblock, cash A of clubs picking up Kx falling, concede a club, and use the As to pitch a diamond and take the finesse).

Other line is hoping clubs split 3-2 (if they split 4-1, I think you're down b/c you'll end up with a loser at the end or middle unless Q10 of spades falls for reasons mentioned above). Clubs 3-2 is about 68% so, this line is about 70%ish percent.

So betting on clubs, I'd probably first cash K of spades (looking for if the Q10 fall, hoping maybe they are doubleton for an extra way out), and lead low to the QJ of diamonds. This line also benefits from only being down 1 when your wrong (well unless you see a spade honor fall under, and you decide to cash A when your over there).

Welcome criticism, and I admit my percent estimations probably aren't perfect.
April 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A world class game developer to make a video game tutorial would be a great idea honestly. I would love to help do it, but also don't have the programing skills…

If someone could make like reasonable tutorial software, it could legit work. It would be great to say just buy a video game if you want to learn. Most forms of teaching are kind of a turn-down, but a virtual platform where you could learn at your own pace would be a legit way of easing into it.
April 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What options did East have over 2?
April 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1) is certainly the prototype for a limit raise, but that doesn't mean it's an inclusive description of the sample set of all limit raises. There are more modern hand evaluation systems than Goren's that might describe some additional hand types as limit raises (and might even downgrade some 4-3-3-3 10 counts out of the limit raise range).

So I voted for 2) only.
March 31, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top