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

I think you misinterpreted my response - probably my fault.

I did not mean to imply that there were not reasons to open Multi. I merely intended to point out that there could be reasons not to.
And since your article basically made the hand a choice between 1 and 2, and you barely mentioned pass, I thought your followers should hear another side of the coin other than “Why Not”.
April 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit,

After explaining the reason for playing 1430 when hearts are trump and one is not playing 4 Kickback, you said “If somebody has another reason for playing 1430, I would be interested to hear about it.”

I gave you a reason. You didn't SEEM interested.
April 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here'a another reason to play 1430. If clubs are trump and 4N is KC (either because you don't play Kickback or some other reason), you want to be able to stop in 5 opposite 1KC
April 21, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“What about opening Multi? Why not?”

Well, as Will Hunting said, that's a tough one but I'll take a shot.

1) I'd prefer not to play my slam or grand slam at the 2-level - could happen if partner has —, AKxx, Kxxxxx, Axx

2) With so many outside honors, I might miss 3N

3) If partner is short in spades, I might miss a heart game

4) Partner may mis-evaluate due to my defense strength and loose honors.

5) Partner may lead fatally, say from Kx, against a suit contract

6) Partner may lead spades against a NT contract, when a red suit lead would be forthcoming had I passed.

7) Opposing declarer might guess clubs to make 3N, helped by my bid

8) I might play 2 doubled down 8 with the opponents having no game, double-dummy.

So, as I see it the question should be why open Multi, rather than why not. I pass. The “better description of my hand” might follow, depending on the auction. And sometimes, I'll be better off keeping mum.
April 21, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Josh,

I totally agree with you about the “weirdness” of some of the strong feelings here.

However, the second worst agreement is not Fishbein but Reverse Fishbein - (3)3 for penalty….
April 21, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed - as long as partner's second bid is NATURAL. You ‘can’t' pass, say, 1m-1, 4 - a splinter. Similarly, I can't pass a reverse, because I play it MAY be artificial. But I CAN pass a jump shift, which I play must be a 4(+)-card suit.
April 14, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This whole idea of a “sub-minimum” response being a “psyche” highlights a major misconception that many bridge players have - even some ‘experts’.
The misconception is that “a response to an opening bid shows 6(+)-HCP.”. This is just plain WRONG.
The correct (and Standard) rule is that “With 6(+)-HCP, you MUST respond.” Clearly, this is far from the same thing.
It might be reasonable to violate this rule, but this is the correct rule.
The rule says nothing about hands with fewer than 6 HCP, except for the implication that you CAN pass.
Experts have many different theories about which hands ought to respond.
Personally, I feel strongly that, at imps, any hand that can bid a 5-card major at the 1-level ought to respond - even with zero HCP. And that passing with a 6-card major is ridiculous.
I have many other theories here. But the important message I am trying to impart is that the idea that bidding with fewer than 6 HCP is a 'psyche" is nonsense.
April 14, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5N is presumed to be a 2-suiter.
6 is also presumed to be a 2-suiter, but is stronger. Basically wants partner to bid grand with an ace (not the A) and any kind of fit, whereas 5N needs 2 high cards to even consider a grand.
Usually would double with a 3-suiter, especially at this vul. At unfavorable, I can see it might be desirable to bid 5N or 6 - especially if my 5-card suit is diamonds. But, at least in theory, 5N and 6 show 2-suiters.

The above is what I play, but I would not expect it to be universal (and guess that it's probably not optimal). I would guess some experts think 5N is 2-suiter with , and 6 shows both majors.
April 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A good article with several good points. However, I have three bones to pick.

1)Bidding: “there is no need to correct to 2NT.” Obviously, Kit knows his methods and principles and I don't. But I don't see why 2N should be “corrective”. It seems far more useful to me as forward-going - a natural try for game. You can always pass with no game interest (and hope that West bids 2!).

2)Play: “If declarer had attacked diamonds, he would have had a real chance to make. West would certainly have covered the 9 with the queen, to king and ace.”
I agree declarer should clearly attack diamonds; and that West would probably cover. However, I don't think East should win the ace on the first round. Ducking looks routine to me, all things considered.

3) Bidding (again): You discussed the bidding of South, North and East, and I agree with most of what you have to say. But if you discussed West's double, I missed it. I found this surprising because I think the double was the most clearly wrong action taken in the auction. Unfavorable vulnerability facing a passed partner. I don't tend to worry about going for numbers, but this is one of the situations where it actually happens in real life.
And aside from anything else, I'd worry that declarer might get a count on my shape and high cards and drop my Q. If your answer is that you'd also double with same hand and xx, I believe you - but maybe the declarer you face won't think that. (In fact, I slightly prefer double with K653, AJ94, xx, Qxx to the double on the actual hand - but I would not double with either hand.)
April 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You could agree that it shows 5+-card spades or a stiff. That should be enough to figure it out….
April 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The main reason it makes sense to have more artificiality with a reverse, is that the reverse is at a lower level, so there is more room to sort out the various hands one might put in there.
To put it another way, you want to cover the hand where opener has 6(+)-card of his own suit and 3-card support for partner's major. Reverse is a more convenient way to do that, since you have more room than over a jump shift.
April 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is actually how I play it - 2-way. However, I believe “trap” is still Standard
April 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My answer:

Jump shift: Yes, you can pass.

Reverse: No, you cannot pass.

This may seem counter-intuitive, since the lower range of a reverse is lower than that of a jump shift.
However, the way I believe is most sensible in Standard is to play that jump shift GUARANTEES a 4-card suit (and therefore can be passed with a sub-minimum response), while a reverse maybe made on a short suit (possibly even a singleton), and therefore cannot be passed.
April 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You left out the most important difference - (4) Geneva had NOTHING to do with a cheating code.
Whatever one thinks of the Geneva incident, it is unfair to paint those individuals with the same (or even a similar) brush.
That's why I think any mention of Geneva does not belong in this thread. And connecting it via “German” is, to me, silly.
April 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not here to defend ACBL Board members, whether in general or in particular. But it seems to me that blanket advice to vote out incumbents is as poorly directed as it can be.
If one wishes to get involved, it seems to me that the first thing to do is to ascertain whether one's Board Member actually voted against those things that one thinks important.
Also, I have very little idea of the procedure for replacing Board members, but it seems to me one should wish to vote FOR somebody who one thinks will do an appropriate job. I guess one could put oneself forward (as suggested), if believing that one could be that person.
I like the concept of positive voting rather than negative voting.
April 11, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BS. For Bobby-Steve, of course.
April 11, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It might have been wiser to keep that info from McEnroe or Federer until you were actually on the court with them….
April 10, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David T.

I think the Cochran quote was closer to “if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit”.
So, to keep the rhyming theme, perhaps Johnny would have said “If you have the meldebescheinigung, you can't be hung”….
April 9, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it's become Standard here to play 2N as a Limit Raise, 3 as a Mixed Raise and 3 as a Preemptive raise (all with 4+-card support).

Sort of weird to me that Kit does not allow for “Standard” mixed raise values in his hand type - yet I think it is the most commonly held of the three….
April 6, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael s.

“In that context, Easts 2? would be Stayman.” Says who? I, for one, don't play that

If 2 is “Stayman” when the double is alerted, but “natural” when it is not, I have a problem.

So E-W need to take the worst of it. I would rule 2 down the reasonable maximum. Since the opposing cards are not provided, I don't know what that is. But I'll guess it's at least down 3.
April 5, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top