Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Rosenberg
1 2 3 4 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 334 335 336 337
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought of the ‘safety play’ with KJ8x, but didn't mention it because declarer, unless he has strong reason to suspect 4-card (not just “length”) with LHO, will likely play to drop the Q after the 10 appears. Still, I guess it is accurate to define KJ8x as a single-dummy “risk”.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To blame North for not continuing over 4, with a minimu JS and missing 3 aces (where partner could easily have none), rather than blaming South for not doing more, with two KEY aces AND a 5th trump is ridiculous. South is far closer to 6 than 4.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David M: “However overcaller went seriously insane with his last two calls”

Agreed. 4 was ridiculous. If not willing to bid 3N, I'm surprised that I haven't seen anybody suggest 3 as a ‘Last Train’ bid. Overcaller will almost never bid 2N with 4-card . (Note: this is not true if you play transfer advances.)
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lynn J: “In your methods…advancer bid his hand correctly…”

I'd say that adsvancer's 4N was pretty far from “correct”.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kieran: On some auctions, transfers don't work smoothly. Take (1S)2-(P).
Where transfers DO work ‘smoothly’, like the OP auction, the main flaw is shown in the 2 ‘cuebid’. Overcaller has no way to show a major below 3 - and that could easily be advancer's main hope. Also, if the ‘cuebid’ is above 2N, you lose overcaller's ability to bid 2N.
Even with that, perhaps transfers is better overall. I don't know. As I said, my experience is that natural NF has done OK (and better than F1). I don't have any personal data comparing to transfers. Of course, with every artificiality comes the danger of a ‘forget’.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lynn: Pretty shocked by your challenge. My comment was not even supposed to (yet) say I think NF is better - it was merely a ‘devil’s adsvocate' answer to Kit's comment.

However, since I DO prefer NF…
Over the last 40+ years I've seen multiple cases in practice where either:

a) A player bid 2 which was the best contract (even facing a stiff), but now had to pass partner's 3 rebid.
b) Same as above, except 3 now gets doubled - had you bid NF 2, partner would have passed
c) A player passed 2 because, while he would have liked to ‘try’ 2, the forcing nature of it scared him off. Here, partner had a heart fit and the wrong strain was played (sometimes game missed)
d) Again, a player passed on a borderline hand. Here, overvcaller had a big hand (or another tale to tell) and game was missed.

I've even played in a 5-1 fit and gained imps because the other room got too high.

In addition, the forcing nature of 2 can create a huge headache for the overcaller. What does she do with a doubleton heart, no stopper, and a minimum?

In addition, overcaller's rebid has less meaning when 2 is forcing. It's clearly ‘purer’ over 2 NF.

I'm not trying to say NF is a panacea. Far from it - and I have seen problems there also. But not as many. I think the reason for this is, after they open, you rarely see a 2-level overcall facing a strong hand. Hands in the 8HCP region are far more common.

When does NF lose? Well, a strong 1-suiter loses almost nothing. True, advancer must jump to 3 - but that might end up being more descriptive than starting with 2 anyway.

Where advancer clearly loses is 5-card (or not strong/flexible 6-card ) and a hand where he can't stand (or even is scared) that 2 might be passed. Having to start with 2 might result in being ‘a step behind’.

My own experience is NF is both a ‘winner’ and more ‘relaxing’ - I can bid what I feel like bidding on the weaker hands and figure out what I think is best on the (rarer) stronger hands.
Obviously, your experience is very different.

But you did ask for a hand. How about KJx, KJxxxx, xxx, x? Or Jxxx, AQJ9x, xxx, x? I'm comfortable with a NF 2 on either of those. But, if it's F1, I'm not sure I want to risk it.
If you don't like those examples, I'm sure I can come up with others.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul B: “East may play the 10 from 10x, Q10, or K10 (the last of these is risky at single dummy).”

I would say that the 10 from 10x is much “riskier” single-dummy than the 10 from K10.
If you play it from 10x, you may find declarer with Q8x. He was just about to play to the Q - now you divert him into the winning line.
Or Qxx.
Or he may have J7x and figures out to make 3 tricks - where the question before was one or two.
Or Jxx.
Also, he may have Qxxx and now guess the suit.
Also, on some holdings where, in a vacuum, he would play ace first, he may lead low to queen because he suspects your partner has the length.

10 from K10 seems to only cost when declarer has QJxx - or Q fifth and led low because he suspects your partner has the length.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A different problem would illustrate why playing new suits forcing opposite 2-level overcalls is a questionable approach.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You really ARE well read…
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Obviously, covering the spade is irrelevant - since you can transpose to your 1B lines in any case.

You are still missing the main point of the hand.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought it should have been ‘no, yes, no, no and no’. Feels more in accordance with ‘normal’ bridge…
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“For example, there might not be convenient entries or their might be a danger of an adverse ruff.”

The OP doesn't specify that we're in a suit contract. However, if we're giving examples, it's possible that playing the ace LOSES to an adverse ruff…
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff A: “He bid 2s intending it as gf.”

David B: “South was expecting the explanation ”game force“, because that's what he thought 2 meant.”

Sez who?

David B: “There may be some confusion over the meaning of this:

”South mistakenly bid 2 - which would have been the ‘values’ 4 card raise had there not been a Double.“

I don't know whether ‘values’ here means ”values for game“ or ”values for at least three“ (or even ”values for exactly three“). So the OP needs to clarify:”

The OP says “West asked about the alerted 2 bid and was told, correctly by the system, that it was a ‘fit jump’ - with invitational values only. ”

I'm missing the part where this is confusing.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Certainly there are other possibilities. I think 3 is bad, but not that bad. I was focusing on heart game because a) that's what you said and b) that would be the impetus for bidding 3.
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“For each heart game I miss, I think I am probably avoid at least 2 minus scores.”

If instead of ‘avoiding minus scores’, you make it ‘avoiding having or increasing minus scores’ I'd put it at at least 10 to 1. That's how unlikely I think a heart game is (facing a partner who bid accurately).
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I guess I feel that a TO double is supposed to promise support for all the unbid suits and it would be a betrayal to double without such and no good plan for what to do when partner chooses a suit I'm supposed to have but don't.”

“Betrayal” is the sort of thinking I don't understand. You're simply a player doing your best with a hand that doesn't ‘fit’.
With a powerful hand and good hearts, I see the ‘money’ as involving hearts somehow.

With the West hand, my choices (assuming Kit's method has not been agreed) in order of preference are:

1) 2N - 2 places to play
2) Double and pass 3D (if partner has 2 places to play, we avoid D)
3) Double and bid 3H over 3D
4) 3C

With the East hand, I see the ‘money’ as passing 3C - likely the last chance to go plus (or avoid a big minus). Rather than trying for game in hearts with two opponents bidding, and a partner who did not try to bring hearts into the picture.
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard is correct - I had actually forgotten that.
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“and you might like to not be vulnerable.”
That part of your wish was actually granted.
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I saw the West hand, one of my first thoughts was ‘Hmmm, good for Kit’s method'. Of course, it's not a panacea. 1-3-4-5 facing 4-3-3-3 will (I think) see Kit reach 3 - where the ‘normal’ world gets to 3.
Kit will know better than I whether his method can have two-card discrepancy problems. I'm not sure how, as the hand over 2, he handles 2-5-3-3 shape. Say xx, Axxxx, AQx, AQx.
April 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very Old Standard is minors. Sensible Old Standard is ‘any two places’ (which, incredibly, I think is GCC illegal). Modern Expert Standard is + a minor.
April 11
1 2 3 4 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 334 335 336 337
.

Bottom Home Top