Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Rosenberg
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And rebid what after 1-1?
Oct. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But the J from J9 or J8 is definitely a brilliant thought. From J9 it follows one of my suit-combination principles.
Partner, unfortunately, will likely mess it up and play the K. He will assume you have J10, and think declarer can't go wrong - if he had 100 declarer can't make it.
Of course, if his spades are xxxxx, he still survives ‘messing up’ in trumps - but then J play didn't gain.
It's sort of sad that a play is so good that it can't work…
Oct. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm a simple soul - I would play 4C showed 6-card - but I might bid it on a hand that wanted to later KC in .

I wonder how many net imps the trend toward Minorwood/Redwood has cost the expert bridge community. I'm pretty sure it's a lot…
Oct. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think in the original construct of the convention, a 5 responses showed 4 aces. Then somebody wised up and made the first step 0/4 and added 5C follow-up for kings. But I've never heard of/seen 6 for queens in anything I read - until I read your comment today.
Oct. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“You bid 4 for aces, then 5 for kings, then 6 for queens”

I don't think 6 for queens is part of Gerber. 6-level bids are to play.
Oct. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Roald: “9 from 98 or 95”. As I suggested elsethread, not all West's would be brave enough to risk the 9 from 95.
Oct. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you bid 2 with 1-5 in the minors, and also with 5-3, then I'm feeling sorry for your partner. I guess, whatever he does, he gets to be dummy.
Oct. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I mean any 4-3-3-3, I write (or say) ‘any 4-3-3-3’. I know - so wasteful…
Oct. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since I misanalyzed this hand (as pointed out by Charles B. above), I decided to rethink it.

When low to the ten gains, West had no choice of what card to play. When low to ace gains, West always had a theoretical choice. But the fact that West ‘can’t' play the 9 from K95 seems to me to put the odds in favor of Simon's play.
People who understand math, please weigh in.

So why did I make this mistake? I had to do some soul-searching. It was because I ‘knew’, for decades, that, with A10xx facing Qxxx, low to Q and then finesse 10 is as good as ace then low to Q for 3 tricks. But that ace was better for ‘max.’. I never thought of low to the 10 as a play that was as good – so had an inherent bias against it.
But it was not until this day that I discovered that, for 3 tricks, low to the 10 was just as good as the other plays all along. Maybe Barzini knew.

'Worse' still, I'm thinking now that (in the suit, not the OP hand) ace then duck is (on a 3-2 break) just as good. So now there are FOUR ‘equivalent’ plays.
It's been a long time since I felt I had such a comparative lack of knowledge on a suit combination. I feel like Botvinnik, when he said “my equanimity was wrecked”.
Oct. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is an excellent point (which I missed) that, combined with the double of 1 and the fall of the Q, the fall of the K means almost certain defeat anyway.
But, if the OP author realized that, I think he should have mentioned the reasoning.
Oct. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That consideration (fear of the 3rd ) would be relevant if considering the initial play of to the Q. But, if playing to ace then to Q, the only relevance is if you think RHO might play the J from KJ third. Since we don't believe that, when the J is played, declarer can duck the second round to cater to KJ doubleton.
Given the above, there is no situation where a third will be relevant - and it's truly irrelevant once West plays low on the first heart.
Oct. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you're going to go into all that detail comparing the two lines. including discussing the ‘meaning’ of the 5, perhaps you want to at least mention all the relevant holdings.

If East has stiff K, only to the ace succeeds.

If you want to go REALLY deep, you can discuss the posssbility of a brilliant play by East from (say) xxx, Kx, Qxxxx, 109x. I doubt Simon seriously considered that - but maybe he did….
Oct. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Other Michael R: Most structures handle that differently. For example, 1m-1, 2N-3 is often used to show 4-4 in the majors.
Oct. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul H:“John's results above are striking enough that I'm at least willing to consider that it may be a mistake not to check on the 5-3 fit in such auctions.”

As I said elsethread, if you have the method to find out if partner has 3-card support and THEN offer a COG, it is CLEAR to do so. If all you can do is show any COG with 5-card H then it's less clear what you should do (but I would still tend to offer the choice).
Oct. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul H: “Analysis using single dummy leads, then DD for the remainder of play, shows that the difference is essentially all about the opening lead.”

It doesn't take double-dummy analysis, or a genius, to figure out that the one card played with the least information is the one that costs the most.

“One problem with DD is trying to get all the conditions right:”

That is a problem - but far from the biggest.

“Bottom line: I consider DD results as useful information, not the last word.”

My “bottom line” is that it's not just useless - it's worse than useless. Because it influences opinion based on a false premise.

When you do a double-dummy analysis, you (or, rather, the Program) basically ‘select’, for each player at each turn, the ‘best’ (most successful) play - or equal-best. The route(s) followed often look nothing like what would occur in actual play.

A proper single-dummy analysis will attempt to choose only the ‘percentage’ action for each player at each turn.

The single-dummy analysis and double-dummy routes will often (I think usually) look nothing like each other. Why use the latter ‘universe’ to determine what we think actually will/rates to happen in the former ‘universe’?
Oct. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul H: “We know double dummy understates the chance of making 3NT, because they always make the killing lead”

Yes. It also OVERSTATES the chance of making, because declarer always ‘guesses’ perfectly which suit to attack and how to play each suit. Declarer has no problem guessing a queen, dropping a stiff king, or spinning the 10 with Q108x facing Kxx (when that's right).

Now these ‘compensating errors’ may have an overall effect of bring the ‘average’ down to ‘correct’ - on some hands. On a particular hand, double-dummy will often be way off.

But I think this sort of analysis is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with how bridge is actually played. By considering double-dummy anal;ysis as a useful tool for determinng single-dummy decisions, much of the bridge world is being hoodwinked here.
Oct. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Andy B: I think that is one of the cases where there no ‘Standard’. I have played it F1 and I've played it NF.

It's less important to play it as forcing than 3 in the OP auction because having available a forcing rebid in a minor is less important than in a major. Bidding 3 on your auction with a forcing 3 bid is uncomfortable - but not as uncomfortable as having to bid 3 on the OP auction.

Also, on the OP auction, you always have the option (however distasteful) of bidding 3. Whereas on your auction with a NF 3 bid you are totally stuck.

I guess this last is an important ‘third reason’ that I should have emphasized earlier.
Oct. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike M: It's true that after 2/1 in comp that raising or rebidding your suit at the 2-level is (fairly) Standard as NF.

Less clear in Standard (or desirability) is opener rebidding his suit at the 3-level. Some play it NF. Some play it Forcing. Some play it forcing only if it's 3.

But all that is over 2/1 in comp. Here we have 3/2 in comp - very different. There are two reasons why I think it's Standard/normal for 3 over 2N in the OP auction to be forcing.

a) It's ‘Standard’ that, after a 3-level invitational bid that opener rebidding 3 of his suit (or, for that matter, making any bid below game) is Forcing.

b) The difference between 2/1 in comp and 3/2 in comp is this: in the former, opener has a cuebid available BELOW 3 of his suit. In the latter, he does not.
So while I can (barely) see 1(2m)-2(P), 3 NF as playable - because you can cuebid 3m with a GF -, I see no analogy with 1(2)-2N - clubs, inv+ P), 3. It just doesn't make any theoretical or practical sense to me to play this as NF.
Oct. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of several reasons to answer “Other”….
Oct. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Offering a choice of games is desirable. But transfers (at least the basic method) is not best for that. If you offer a choice of games after transferring, opener can rarely choose 3N with 3-card support - responder can have too many shapes. Same is true after 2N opening, unless you have some special method (such as I do or French Standard does).

You are much better off with a direct chackback method for COG. Have partner show 3-card support, THEN offer a choice. Now it's a ‘real’ choice.
Oct. 5
.

Bottom Home Top