Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Martin Lindfors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 40 41 42 43
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do play mini-NT nonvulnerable, so I have selected that bid in the absence of any other agreements.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ODR can hardly get lower for a hand with six cards in a suit. All vulnerable this is a clear pass. Should we be non-vulnerable, I think showing the suit would be OK, but I would still tend to pass.
22 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Close, but not exactly right. Passing this out is a partnership destroyer, straight and simple.
22 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. I think the above discussion makes it quite clear. 3 can't be suggesting spades, since we would have bid 2 with 6-5. We're not checking for a notrump stopper in our already bid suit, and we have already suggested notrumps with 2NT.

Partner's 3 is a slam invite, agreeing diamonds. The only way to reject the slam invite is to bid 3NT (or, extremely unusually, 5). If we do not bid 3NT, we are suggesting slam and making a control bid.
22 hours ago
Martin Lindfors edited this comment 22 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you want another chance to bid, change your system and make a club forcing. This is a hand you pass with.
22 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not enough points to redouble. I think a direct preference to 2 should be weak (5-7, fast arrival) and redouble should show 10-11 and preferably not an honor in partner's suit. Thus I pass, planning to bid 2 over 2 and probably passing 2.
22 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 shows the spade king. Italian control bids, up the line, second/first round all the same.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I generally follow the rule of 2-3-4. Thus, for a weak jump overcall of 2, we expect 4 playing tricks favorable, 5 tricks equal, and 6 tricks unfavorable.

With spades, it's good to follow it quite well. On lower-ranking suits it's good to be a little bit more aggressive - round up if we have a 2.5 heart bid, while rounding down if we have a 2.5 spade bid.

If we have a side ace, preempting is discouraged, while with a side king, it's acceptable. With “too many” defensive tricks, just make a simple overcall.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've spent quite a few flights with that app. Works well, even though (as expected) the bots sometimes play poorly.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sam, this is interesting. Perhaps not competitive, but very funny. Interestingly, in Sweden, it is legal and feasible to play “pointer bids” (bids showing length in another suit) but any other artificial meaning of one of a major is not feasible. So the rules are basically the opposite of the ACBL rules.

See: https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/swedens-system-regulations/

1 showing 4+, any strength: 0 dots
1 showing 4+ (and at least 8+hcp): 1 dot
1 showing either minor (and at least 8+hcp): 4 dots

Playing any 4 dot bid requires providing a written defense to the opponents with a week's notice, while using a 1 dot bid is no big deal at all.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good point, thanks. It's quite strange indeed. Perhaps partner's heart fillers are bad, but I think that making an unfavorable 2 weak jump with KT8xxxx and out seems normal. Actually I would be OK making it on JT8xxxx and out … at least more OK than making a simple overcall on such a hand. And in that case, where are the side high cards?

And as is evident when looking at our hand, partner hardly holds much in the way of defensive tricks which could dissuade him from preempting.

Taking control with keycard, when we can't visualize partner's hand very well, seems like a risky choice. I'll just go to slam and partner can participate in the strain choice.
April 21
Martin Lindfors edited this comment April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, the idea was to do that in Stayman instead of with transfers. But it's probably not sensible.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5NT pick a slam. We have a massive hand. Instead of 3 I would have preferred the jump shift to 4 if it was natural and GF, which I am not sure it is.

If partner has AKxxxx xxx xxx x, I have a different view of an unfavorable overcall. But we might still make the slam.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 - 1 is natural showing five spades, and nothing but five spades. I'm happy to step away from natural bidding sometimes, but not there. Never.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would never call a hand with two aces bad.

The question is, how likely is it that the opponents have a game? If they do, it's likely notrumps, and our overcall might be costly in its lead anti-directional value. If they don't, we are far more likely to buy the contract if we overcall.

Since partner is passed, the opponents are expected to get to game fairly often. But not that often. And it's possible partner's heart lead won't cost against 3NT, or that we'll get the lead and partner will have a chance to figure it out.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2NT - 3 - ?

3: 2-3 , 2-4
3: 4-5 , 2-3 (3 asks length)
3: 5
3NT: 4, 4 (4 general slam try, 4red transfer)

2NT - 3 - 3 - ?
3: 4+ (accept with 3, 3NT with 2, cue with 4)
3: 5+, 4

Still can't handle the case where responder has 3=5 in the majors, and wants to check for opener's 5=2. No idea how to do that.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since it's matchpoints, I'm very tempted to just shoot out 6. But I have exercised a lot of restraint to keep myself at the two level. 2.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm usually not very concerned about being passed out at the one level when I hold a seven card suit. Especially nonvulnerable.

What I am concerned about is that I'll have to show my suit at the five level.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So a priori, if you have two honors, one ace and one king, they split either A/K, AK/-, K/A, or -/AK, where the slash separates LHO's holding from RHO's. The second case AK/- can be ruled out because of the absence of the opening bid. If the club lead is more likely to be from length, vacant spaces tells us that -/AK is more likely than the even splits. But if RHO could have a 5 card major, the AK combination makes it likely that RHO could have overcalled, reducing the likelihood of -/AK.

If we figure that vacant spaces and overcall tendencies rate to cancel out, it seems that we should expect any remaining honor to be with RHO 67% of the time. This is all very rough and I'm not sure it's right, any thoughts?
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, the spots could be worse…
April 18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 40 41 42 43
.

Bottom Home Top