Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mario Fonzo
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
TYVM
July 15, 2013
Mario Fonzo edited this comment July 15, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You're right, Bob (and Doug. I started out simply Yes and No and then decided it'd be nice to know not only that you carried on but how you would rebid next round. My friend Peter pointed out the flaw in my choices. Now seems a bit late to correct the snafu. Thanks for your input, guys.
July 15, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, sorry - this actual hand it was nobody vul/IMPs
July 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just noticed the 2H bid was added after the 2D votes registered. np
July 13, 2013
Mario Fonzo edited this comment July 13, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suspect that this doubler has clubs. Playing in unfamiliar partnerships is a real hazard. I like John's answer above best, he would have to know with whom he was dealing. Better than my just assigning a meaning on a pure guess.
July 13, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Has anyone ever tried exempting this one auction from the constraints of 4SF and having the 2 rebid by responder show something along the lines of ATxxx, Kxxxx, x, xx?

Which of us hasn't been frustrated with this type of hand and no way to show it?

Is there anything to recommend this approach, or is there some downside that makes it unworthy of consideration? If you have already discovered a way, please share.

July 12, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Despite the allure of the double fit, it's still too easy to envision many hands with 2 losers.
July 12, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For those thinking this could be some self-DONT-like rescue system, what would be the upside of Opener doing it? Isn't the partner of the NT opener the one in a position to know if there should be any running that needs doing?

I don't see how Opener is in a position to start running when he has absolutely no idea how strong or weak his partner might be (beyond knowing he can't be better than a 4-3-3-3 8 count that is).
July 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
the old switcheroo :) i'll go to the right one straight away
July 10, 2013
Mario Fonzo edited this comment July 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't pretend to argue against the relative merits of the approach. As I've said earlier, championships speak volumes.

However …

As an opponent, if a hand like the example cited in the poll was revealed after a 1 opener and I had not been pre-alerted to this possibility, I would feel injured (whether I was technically injured or not might be another matter).

It is my belief that in the spirit of full disclosure, the opponents must in some way be informed. After all, being told “it's a 5 card major system” is insufficient disclosure when one's partner is aware that it could resemble the example hand.

Most of us play some type of 5 card major system, and none that I've ever seen begins to approach this one, so it is highly unfamiliar to me. Not to mention which fact, the partnership (bidder AND partner) are in on this.

Isn't this the point of full disclosure? To make opponents aware of your agreements and even frequent tendencies? I could be mistaken but I hope not. I'm a big proponent of full disclosure.
July 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
None of which I am aware.
July 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wanted to distinguish between some anomalous random act by some pair down at the local club and players who are regarded as expert by many … and this NT opener is.

You have kibitzed some of these matches yourself.
July 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are you asking me what pass of the Double would show? Pass of the double by opener is standard and would not be alertable.
July 9, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Slept on it. It still looks like the most accurate portrayal of my hand.
July 9, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
48 people voted before the correct bidding translation. I apologize for this … jtmckee in his comment gives the full and accurate summary of bids and their meaning.
July 9, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You didn't contradict me at all. I know McKee has the straight scoop. Part of the (my) problem was that none of these bids was explained in my copy of the hand record I have since learned that depending how the hand was saved, the alerts and explanations show up or don't show up in the record.
I never realized that before.

Thanks guys, for setting the record straight.
July 9, 2013
Mario Fonzo edited this comment July 9, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Valid point, Tom. I'll sleep on it.
July 8, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
SORRY!

Guess I'll take my lead back :) I really thought I had the explanations correct.

But the hand is very interesting, and the actual lead even more fascinating with all the correct info on bid meanings.

Should I repost the hand with correct info and start over, or edit the information above? It ain't easy bein' green.

Note: None of these bids had notations on them. They must have explained openly to table or
privately to opponents.

July 8, 2013
Mario Fonzo edited this comment July 8, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even if you don't have 3 formally in your arsenal, isn't it the logical bid here? You're forced to game, you are painting an accurate picture of your shape, and not committing to spades. After all, pard's spades might be real.

I don't believe you need a special agreement to find a 3 bid on this one. So how wrong am I? :)
July 8, 2013
Mario Fonzo edited this comment July 8, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If there is a reason for more than a simple overcall, it eludes me. I await further enlightenment on the matter.
July 8, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top