Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Rosenberg
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Saverio:

1) I feel strongly that problems should be posed in an unbiased way, so as the person answering has no idea what you ‘want’ them to answer. Only this way do you have the chance of a ‘true’ answer.
Even spot cards are often ‘used’ by people giving problems. Adding them when they want you to bid more, omitting them when they want you to bid less. It's better to have no ‘x’s' when posing a problem

2) “Am I right when I say that over 1N doubled South could bid redbl or 2N to show power and bal or unbal hand?”

I presume you mean North. I agree 3 shows a good playing hand - but I think it is more likely to be a SEVEN-card suit at this vulnerability.
2 obviously might be 5-6. And it's possible responder can have 4-card spades - 1N does not absolutely exclude that (though it would be a notrumpy hand). i'd describe 2 as at least the values for a 3 bid with at least 4-card .

3) “Knowing South has something in and at least tolerance…”

Anybody might have 3-4-4-xx to bid 1N. I'd hardly describe xx as “club tolerance'. And I know world class players who believe it is reasonable with 3-4-5-1 (though I am not in their camp). So North does not ‘know’ of club tolerance.

4) North knows 5 is a possible contract, but also knows it is still possible to arrive there after 2.

5) ”Is South hand worth an invite to 5 after N's 2 rebid?"

In my opinion the answer is clearly yes. Even you might rebid 2 with, say, J432, 32, A, AK5432.
South has already ‘strayed’ a little with 1N - he might have chosen to bid 2 as limit-or-better. If partner has AK432, he will never visualize the suit being a huge favorite to run facing 1HCP.
March 27, 2015
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about the “tool” of, over 2, bidding 2 or 2 to show a ‘good 3 bid?’
March 27, 2015
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South 100% - only because I don't like the biased way the problem was posed.
March 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To me, a good idea is to construct things so we can actually start at the time we say we are going to start. I think words should mean what they say.
March 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe an organization would maximize it's revenue by doing what makes it's ‘customers’ happy. It's not about seeding, at least not for me. It's about being orderly and professional.
March 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Steve. Except I think 2 days (maybe even 2 weeks?) in advance would be better.

That way, the Bridgemates could be prepared in advance and be ready for the start of the event. As it stands now, they are often not operational till near the end of the first round, and I've played in National events where they don't work till the second round.

In the first session of this year's Platinum Pairs I had FIVE(!) different table number assignments, before I actually got to play. (In ‘fairness’, two of those were at the same physical table).

The appearance of a frantic shambles is not a good one. Usually, it's not a shambles - but it always feels a little frantic - especially for those doing the seeding. (Thanks, btw, to David Berkowitz, Ron Smith and Chris Willenken who I know have all done stellar duty here. I apologize to anyone who I have omitted.)

Kit's point that last-minute pairings do form is true, but to have smooth organization we need advance entry.
I think it would be nice for an event scheduled to start at a certain time to actually start at that time.
March 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not understanding how playing 10 at trick one would avoid the later ruff.
March 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How do you handle a ‘mostly club’ hand, too good to double? xx, AJx, Ax, AKQxxx? And Ax, AJx, xx, AKQxxx? Not to mention xxx, AJx, Ax, AKQJx?

There is some hand that can bid 3. But bidding it on all my examples won't ‘work’.

In case you haven't guessed, I don't believe double of 3 should be defined as ‘penalty’. I think it should mean what I always think it should mean (in the absence of specific discussion);

“Undisclosed values, no better descriptive bid available”.

I can still get a penalty sometimes; when I can stand to pass, and advancer has enough to double; or when I double and advancer is (say) 4-4-4-1.
I agree you will get more penalties. But my experience is that the ‘awkward’ hands get dealt far more often. And I try to teach the following: “Double is not penalty, unless specifically agreed or no other possibility.”
Then I have a list of Penalty Double situations…
March 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A supernatural defense would be possible if LHO started with stiff spade and Jxx. Now the low fails for a different reason…
March 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sometimes, nice guys finish first…congrats guys
March 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe, for normal TO shapes, that “school” is mostly thinking about a 1-level overcall.
March 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's true some would double with that hand, but the auction may get uncomfortable. I prefer a Kokish-style 2. Perhaps, if I had instead made the hand 0-2-4-7, I could have deflected this criticism. Or perhaps had I just ‘settled’ for a construction with only 10 tricks in 3 doubled…
March 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They might. I'd say 3 and redouble are both reasonable, but 3 is probably ‘smarter’. Unlike 3 with the actual hand.
March 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I totally disagree that RHO had anything close to a 3 bid.
When you pass the double with this hand, you are mostly saying to your RHO “I think you're a little crazy”. East is vul against not and bidding again, when for all he knows, you are about to pass TWO clubs doubled.
He doesn't need Josh's 8.75 tricks, but he does need about 8 tricks. On his actual hand, he can't even be sure of 6 tricks!
What purpose is there in bidding? Maybe opponents are going to bid above 3 anyway. Maybe partner will come back to life (though that is unlikely). Maybe you go down a couple in 3 (even undoubled) when they had no fit and no making contract.
Here's a construction of what I think the passers ‘deserve’

Partner: QJ10x, KQJ109, AKJ10 — Declarer Kxxx, Ax, —, AKQ109xx. Declarer wins the heart lead, crosses to A, ruff , K, ruff , ruff , ruff , ruff , A, exit with a heart. Declarer is sort of disappointed to ‘only’ make 11 tricks. (I could have given a hand where they make slam, but liked this better.)
March 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit, I never said it was “safe” to cover with Q8x. I said it is “not totally impossible.” I said it “was ”correct“ from J8x”. apparently you agree. If declarer has your AQx or KQx, you're better off covering - declarer is ‘obviously’ running the 10..
We agree that bridge hasn't reached that level yet…
March 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“we know he is not perfect.”

Finally, absolute proof that you are an underbidder…
March 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think in some cases that, almost incredibly, the position of the club TEN may determine whether 6N is made…
March 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kurt. If you duck 8, it wins. RHO plays a club. And you…?
March 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit: I think covering from Q8 doubleton is possible. And covering from J8x is ‘correct’ - it's just a play we haven't seen before. Even Q8x is not totally impossible.
But, as a practical matter, I agree H8x won't cover.

“I have no idea.” That's where I've been on the problem of how to play hearts from the moment I looked at this problem….
This hand seems to be dependent on what one thinks of the opponents….
March 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Leo: An “F” is way out of line. At least declarer made some effort to combine chances. If you give this an “F”, what do you give to one who leads a low heart at trick 2? Or finesses clubs immediately? Or makes some nullo play?
I didn't vote in the grading - partly because a lot depends on what he or she was planning had RHO played the 8 on the second round. But I would probably have voted a “C”.
March 10, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top