Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Rosenberg
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 389 390 391 392
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ok. But it doesn't really translate to the OP auction. For example, your 3 bid that shows and stoppers is not needed - responder already showed a stopper.
Nov. 20
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do you mean you play this in general, or on the OP auction?
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bart: 1) There was one hand I solved really fast - because I'd seen the theme before. Something like KQ87x of trumps facing AJ9x and you lead low from dummy to to the 8 when RHO shows out. Of course, this means that my beating you on time might not have been fair - the hands were supposed to be ‘new’.

2) Have you researched who is right - this article or me? The article says we each got 9 hands completely right - I thought 8. And the article says you made three ‘errors’ while I made 4. While I thought I made 6 ‘errors’ and you made 5.
Nov. 19
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes - I think it was called
“Untangling 3
Nov. 19
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kevin R: Agreed. But then uou need some artificial bids. Just as, over 1-1M, 3 moat would play 3oM as naturalish, but the percentages say to play it as showing values.
Nov. 19
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Timo: Not unreasonable. These are difficult areas. Partnershps (and non-partnerships) can only hope to survive. I would tend not to have strong criticism about bids made by my partner in this auction.
Nov. 19
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Absolutely true. The question is whether opener should attempt to ‘use’ the cuebid to ameliorate the problem. I don't think the answer is clear.
Nov. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can you name a form of classical Japanese musical drama?
Nov. 19
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Frances H: Then I guess you don't buy the concept that 3 implies spade worry. How exactly is opener supposed to bid x, Qx, AKxxxxx, AKx?
I guess you could say that hand should bid 3 over 1N - but I'd be pretty nervous doing that without agreement.
Nov. 19
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard R: Maybe so, but it's definitely a problem. Responder can have a ‘great’ hand facing 5-5 - but only so-so facing 4-card .
Nov. 19
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David B: That might be an issue. However, as has long been known, it's not always easy, in general, to ‘solve things’ over 3. Opener has only 3 bids that keep us below 3N, yet can have more than 3 ‘hand-types’. And using 3 as ‘2-way’ also usually comes with a flaw - even assuming anybody has such an agreement.

I don't think 2 should deny 3-card - but I can see thinking that 3 denies the ‘bulk’ of the hand is in spades. Maybe the OP hand is not extreme enough - I'm not sure. Maybe it has to be more like AKx and xxx. Or maybe KQJ and no J.
But what I AM certain of is that bidding 2 gives the partnership THREE more steps to sort things out. And making the most economical bid often helps matters.

If you bid 3, I think partner's 3 should be depicting spade worry (as I said above). But if opener bids 3 or 3!N over 31d, you have ‘lost’ the opportunity to show spade value below 3N.

I just thought somebody should mention the POSSIBILITY of bidding 2.
Nov. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“But I am not at risk of playing a part score because almost everyone expects the bid is game forcing.”

Yes, I already said elsethread that the particular question of the OP is one where we needn't worry that much about partner passing - though there were a couple of experts who thought it was or should be NF - so not 100%. I like 100%.
And what about the many other auctions where some will think ‘same’ and others will think ‘different’?

I also said I suspected there was an element of BS in some of the answers. That some experts WOULD bid 3 on the OP auction on an invitational hand with 3-card (some 15-16 4-3-4-2 hands) - and then pass 3.

“The big difference between this auction and 1M 2M where invites have the same ”thread the needle“ feel is that on this auction, we can't be sure of strain yet, so thread the needle is harder.”

I'm not sure which you mean by “this auction” but I disagree either way. In each auction the strain could be NT or the major - and a minor suit contract is not impossible.
Nov. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“IMO you are slicing the remaining hands too thinly to make a subtle counter invite.”

No, that's not what I'm doing. What I'm doing is having a general default rule and following it. I already said I'm pretty certain the rule is not optimal for all auctions. But it will avoid misunderstandings - the sort that cause experts to play slam in a partial, or overreach and get doubled in a game.
Nov. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand what you're saying. You talk about opening bid opposite a LR the same way as if it were a 5-card 1M opening facing a 4-card LR.

I'd think more like 1m-1M, 2M. We need to find the values for game AND we need to establish if the fit is 7-card or 8-card. And if a 4-4 fit we'll want about 25 HCP for game.
Nov. 19
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ercan: It's not that I haven't made up my mind. It's simply that bidding 2 with 4-card is a gamble. If partner bids 3 you have to accept that you can no longer ‘show’ the clubs below 3N. Once partner bids 3, 3eM by opener will be assumed to be 1-suiter.

I think it's a reasonable gamble with 6-4. In fact, it's clear to bid this way as long as you intend to bid past 3N. But, obviously, you did not make that determination.

Opener's hand in the OP has a good slam facing Qxx and kxxx regardless of major suit values - but that slam might need to be in clubs.
Nov. 19
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ercan: Your analogy is not valid. It's Standard for responder to have a way to invite in a new suit after 1N rebid. But there is no way in Standard for opener to immediately show invitational values in a new suit. You would need a special agreement.

Of course, the 2 rebid in the OP auction is not as wide range as after 1-1M. I never said it was. After 1-1M, responder's range is very wide - opener needs a huge hand to JUmp Shift.
But after the OP auction, responder's range is narrow - say 7+-11-, so opener would now be GF with value of 18 - maybe even value of 17 (rather than ‘risking’ 2. So there the ‘value’ range becomes 12-17 minus.
Nov. 19
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This auction is quite complicated.

First West. There was a lot of talk about bidding 3 over 3 - which feels clear - though see analysis of East's bidding below.
I saw no mention of West bidding TWO spades which is probably correct here. Why not, having denied 4-card , bid where you live?

Now East. What does his auction mean? 2 is a GF. If he had short hearts with a 1-suiter, THAT is a 3 bid over 1N - those suggesting it with this hand need to explain how partner knows if their clubs are AQ10x or Ax.

And if opener had 4-card , he could start with 2 (except with 4-card also).

So 2 is either a 1-suiter with worry OUTSIDE of hearts OR (maybe) 4-card that wanted to bid 3 next - as opposed to direct 3 which we might want to depict 5-card .
But it looks as if you can only handle this 4-card thing if partner bids cheaper than 3. So maybe it's more practical for opener to just rebid 3 here - then follow with 3 over 3.
Still, I sympathize with 2. The auction COULD go ‘nicely’.

After West's 3, what is the language of East's 3-level bids? Well, just thinking about the 1-suiters, 3 should show CLUB worry and 3 should show SPADE worry. (Heart worry would have bid 3 over 1N) This is why it's not so clear that WEst was so wrong to bid 3N over 3.

What would 3N over 3 by opener be? I'm guessing it would be a hand with no special worry - but was hoping to hear 3 over 2.
Nov. 18
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ercan: “, is it absolutely certain that three clubs is forcing?”

If you're playing Standard, then yes.

“ Obviously, two clubs would be non-forcing; so how does East invite with clubs and diamonds?”

You could ask exactly the same question after 1(P)-1)P. Presumably you will concede that 3 is forcing there and 2 is wide-range. For me, 2 is 12-19 in value - say 11-18 HCP.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would say balancing with a double is as clearcut as finessing for the K with a 10-card fit. it could lose, but is definitely the percentage action.

I agree that the criticism of 3 was over the top.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kel: Right - I was avoiding discussing ‘new suit over the cuebid’.

My notes have it covered (big surprise). After TO double and 1-level advance, I play doubler's cuebid DENIES 3-card support for advancer's suit, and advancer's 2-level bid in a new suit is NF. For example, with xxx, xxx, xxxx, xxx, after (1)X-(P)1. (P)2
advancer would bid 2.

New suit at the THREE-level over the 2-level cue is values but NF (Forcing if a reverse) with one exception: 2 then 3 shows no values.

New suit facing ANY level cuebid after an OVERCALL is F1

There's more ‘stuff’ but I'm not going to write everything.

So your first example would be NF for me. Your second example is a bit weird. Overcaller bid Michaels(?). The meaning of 3 looks unclear. 3 just looks like a LT game try. Sounds like we're getting to game.
Nov. 18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 389 390 391 392
.

Bottom Home Top