Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Rosenberg
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But wouldn't that be ambiguous? It might mean that I think ‘this’, in my opinion, is what the Law says.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In this kind of poll format, is there a way to see who voted for what?
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'll be interested to see if poll numbers for my choice now climb.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul: You left out that A may prevent a second overtrick when partner has NONE of the ‘big three’ cards.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Frances: I was thinking of commenting that, for those playing Flannery (and/or those playing 1N is 5+), it's less bad to bid 1 then 2 - because of the 2-5-4-2 thing. But thought I would be getting too far off topic.

Your methods over 1-1, 2 are great for this hand-type. You lose a little when responder has a GF. Maybe your way is better - but keeping 2 GF is intuitive for me - I've always like that. Just as getting rid of 1-1, 2-3 as FSFG was intuitive for me - I always hated that.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Henrik: That is a good point. I guess I need to specify each time ‘I don’t know what the rules are but here's what I think they should be'. I'll try to do that from now on.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why is playing partner for the K not at least a choice? If partner has no A or K, you can't gain with a spade - and you MIGHT lose your A. This IS matchpoints.
Of course, if partner has nothing and you need to cash A or lose it, I doubt this poll would have occurred. I'll be very impressed if that's the case.

Is playing partner for a major suit ace (when A is a priori unlikely) clearly indicated vs. playing him for the ‘lesser’ card of K?

And A also ‘survives’ (though won't get max.) when partner, surprisingly, has a stiff
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David Y.: I agree low rates to be better than the K. But not “has to be better”. Declarer could have (say) AQJ10x, QJ10xx, x, KJ.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Henrik: Sorry. I guess you don't know my opinions here are never about what the Law is (unless explicitly stated to be so) but always about what I think the law ought to be. I was in no way trying to ‘correct’ you as to the law. I was just saying the way I think things should be.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fun question. I guess the answer has to be no.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the early 90's I did a lot of work constructing an ‘optimal’ ‘range-ask/long suit ask/transfer’ structure after 3N ovecall of a preempt. It was always a bit of a hassle to read and remember, and I never felt sure my partner and I would be on the same wavelength if it came up.
In the 90's and 00's it seemed like it never came up. It never mattered what my partner and I were playing. I certainly never drived any bemefit from the structure.

So, by about 2010 I scrapped it and just determined I'd just play what partner wanted - at least I could be pretty confident we would know it.

When I played with Pepsi, he proposed the Martens' structure, so we played that. It came up once (in the 2017 USBC final), and we did gain a swing on the hand - though I don't think the swing was ‘caused’ by the convention.

Since then, I've just gone to ‘Stayman and Transfers’ - with transfer into their suit showing clubs. I maker sure to cover transfer then 4N. The one ‘wrinkle’ I put in was 4 then 4 showed 5-5 in the majors. This actually came up at the right time (though I don't remember where), and my side gained a swing.

Strangely, in the 10's, I've seen multiple misunderstandings after 3N overcall (and I don't recall previous ones). More than one of those misunderstandings was the KC/Quantitative question from the OP auction.

Conclusion: Doing ‘hard work’ in this area is not ‘lucky’. Simpler is luckier. And the one thing to be sure to cover is transfer then 4N.

Btw, in the original structure from the 90's, I had transfer then 4N being natural (I think notes said “about 14 HCP”).
At some point (I think in the 00's) I switched to KC - mostly because it was more consistent with a General Principle I like - ‘4N is KC Blackwood unless otherwise agreed’. I prefer to have the “otherwise” be shorter.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bob H: “Like Michael R, I have no idea what is best. Unlike him, I think rkc blackwood is ”standard“. I would expect my partner to interpret it as such absent discussion.”

Then there is a good chance you will have the same misunderstanding I have seen expert pairs have more than once in the last decade.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed. The only reason to even consider a courtesy raise on the OP hand is the good 3-5-4-1 possibility. 5 is not really on the radar - even though that turns out to be the ‘reason’.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Henrik: “Well, if the declarer realizes he has made a misbid, he shall not call the director since no infraction is made. If the declarer is not sure if he or his partner is right regardning the meaning of the call, he also should not call the director. The only time the declarer has to call the director is when he knows his partners explanation is wrong.”

While I ‘liked’ your comment elsethread about the timing of the call (in fact, ‘liked’ is not strong enough. You expounded my belief exactly), I disagree with you here.

Players often don't call when there is doubt, later saying they didn't want to create more UI, and so they stay silent (for the time being) in an effort to ‘be fair’ to the opponents.
But, assuming the partnership is going to act honestly after the possibility of confusion is volunteered, the only side you are ‘helping’ by staying silent is your own.
More UI will, on average, make things ‘worse’ for you. Partner can no longer ‘figure out on his own’ what might have happened.

When you make a and partner explains it as something other than you intended, it's pretty rare this is a ‘true’ misbid. Far more likely is that you and your partner did not have a firm agreement. Because, otherwise, why is this happening?
You know this (and your partner might also become aware). The opponents are entitled to the same information you have.

For me, these situations are nearly always MI, and very rarely a true misbid.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Burn's Fourth Law: when partner doubles a slam because he has a void, it is never in your longest suit.”

This is also my experience though “never” is hyperbole.

In the 90's in a Spinderbilt final Kantar and Sontag bid something like 1-5N, 7. I doubled in pass-out seat. Zia was on lead with something like K10xxxx, x, Jxxx, xx. He led a spade - I was void of .
Afterward we discussed and agree there was a good case for a because he had K - dummy rated to have a long strong side suit.
I don't remember us discussing a club lead, so maybe he was 6-2-4-1. Or maybe we didn't appreciate then how far Burn's Law could be carried.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, at least if you lead a trump you can be pretty sure that's a suit partner will play a trump on…
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nope. I thought it simplest. I said elsethresd “ I don't actually know which way is superior. That's why I checked the poll answer that this is what I play, rather than that it's theoretically best.”
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can't be on a side. I said I don't know what's best. I just said what I play.
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'll forget about Victor if and when you write a public apology to the BW community for what you did. I won't hold my breath.

Alternatively, I'll make the following deal with you. You don't tell any lies about me - and I won't tell the truth about you.
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Victor - I mean Stefan:

“So what? Who cares?”

I believe there are people on BW who care about my opinion. If you do not, feel free to ignore me.

“There are many constructions where a club lead from a doubleton defeats the contract while the DK does not.”

That's true. However, if there are many more where, single dummy, DK will do better (which is what I believe) then your statement is not relevant.

Actually, I've been thinking about it and I believe you are partially correct. A club from K9xxx, xx, KQxx, xx would NOT be my second choice (as I had implied so far).

If I determine that my defense is predicated on cashing or setting up diamond tricks, then I guess it's predicated on scoring the KQ - not giving away a trick there. I would want partner to have clubs ‘covered’ for this defense.
Thus, with all suits somewhat ‘covered’, I think I prefer a trump lead to a club (as long as my high x is not the 9). A club may ‘pickle’ partner's holding or remove a guess or lead partner into a losing defense.
Of course a trump may also hurt partner's holding - but declarer is really likely to get that right anyway. And a trump, in addition to perhaps being the best ‘passive’ lead, might also gain by preventing a ruff in dummy when partner has 3-card support.

See my reply to John Cox above as to why I (so far) think that a at trick 3 is the logical and ‘unflawed’ defense. My construction is entirely consistent with EVERYTHING that has happened; only a works; and declarer should certainly make if the shift is not found.
Nov. 4
.

Bottom Home Top