Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Rosenberg
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What matters is that your opponents know the likelihood of your having 4-card with the same degree of certainty that your partner knows it.
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Allowing anything that could be termeed (above beginner level) as a ‘good’ play seems patently ridiculous to me. 9 from J9xx is such a play.
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David B: Are you stating that no play exists that is “careless” for a weak player but ‘ridiculous’ for a strong player?
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this is different. The ‘answer is different. Because the answer with the the stiff queen should simply be ’yes'. If declarer now conceded down one, he's down on. If he says, ‘well, I cash the ace, or asks ’is it singleton' then he makes.
That seems pretty harsh - but…
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chrisatopher: I do both - and more.
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Greg: I'm not sure if it “maks sense” to automatically trust the ‘report’ that it happened - especially from a person who may well have had an inherent bias. Isn't it possible the ‘observer’ sees what he wants to, when he wants to?
The observation seems a lot more meaningful when it doesn't know the method, but spots it and comes to the same conclusion. l think that is Richard's point (that, perhaps, he preferred not to state - sorry, Richard)..
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Andy B: “what would be a minimum for a double of 3?”

I'd say it starts at a hand that would be a bit worried if it bid 3 and partner passed. Or starts at a hand that, if RHO had instead raised to 4, would be really uncomfortable passing.

Maybe this qualifies for you. It doesn't for me. Change Q to K and I think of it as a bare minimum. Change J to HK and I think it's clear.

Another ‘criterium I might have tried is ’Or at a hand that, over (1)X-(3) would bid a happy 3'. But less sure about that one because the ‘positional’ considerations are inverted.
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I meant over pass
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dale: For me, fairness is case-by-case dependent, so I'd want to know the actual situation. But generally, if “drawing trump” is accurate (can survive the worst break) aAnd timely (could not have claimed earlier) then I will accept it.
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Best” is to play 3 puppets 3 - which allows you to have both F and NF 3M bids - together with a whole lot of other stuff
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David B: Yet another argument you might make - and I think a sligtly better one - is that the early play might have convinced the declarer that the K was offside. Hence the possibility of the ‘careless’ to J.

I guess the point for me is that IF I have no doubt, I won't take away the trick. And on the facts as presented, with the question and the comment, I have no doubt.

Whereas you always have doubt unless everything is ‘perfect’.
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bill J: David Burn is certainly not wrong for answering - his position is that it doesn't matter if it's the best player in world he still rules against him.

For me, who rules for him, I had already considered your point. My answer is that I've never seen any “class of player”player who would claim in the way the player did, but would also not lead the Q. Which is why I didn't ask your question.
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I feel for the claimant here.”

I don't. I consider the problem here to be entirely his fault.
I'd love to rule against him if I had any doubt. But I don't, so I'll give him the trick.
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, it was. And I think logic dictates that it ought to be
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When they double your opening - any opening - you have a different set of rules in Standard.

I, too, play the General Principle that double does not change our agreements. However, my notes have a list of exceptions, the first one being:
1) They double our opening – specifically covered elsewhere
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nigel: I doubt it. Since I don't need both, and since I think the finesse rates to lose, I'd start with hearts. I guess if I had an easy entry to dummy I'd consideer finesse first.


Anyway, my point was more that the OP was strange. If a double-dummy problem, way too easy; if a single-dummy problem, why provide the EW hands?
Would you have suggested the line you did if East was shown to hold Q? I strongly doubt it.

So I tried to pretend I couldn't see them. I think that's how I would have played.

Feel free to malign my line.
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rosalind: ““after letting opponents bid their hands out”
Meant: after passing up several opportunities to enter the bidding earlier.”

Yeah, I sort of guessed that, so I could have let that one go. My rule for that is “can't be anything else”.

““when partner’s hand is largely known (e.g., by a two-suited overcall)”
(1)-2-(3)-double
All our two-suited overcalls are suit-specific, which would appear to make a difference.”

Even with specific suits, I think it's clear that double is far more useful as a game try in spades than as penalty.

Same goes for (1)2-majors-(3) Double - I play that as a game try.

However (1)2-majors-(3) double I DO play as penalty - because I have 3 for the game try.

As for thye 2 example, it's one where I (and many others) play it as a Double Negative. If you don't the, well. I did say there were some you wouldn't want to change.
I have a couple of other situations where pass is forcing - but I see no point in going further. Your list was basically pretty fgood. But it's really dufficult to align the perfect wording with your actual agreements. And a ‘mistake’ can lead to disaster if partner thinks differently/literally.
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“or the player had the intention of playing small.”

For mem that neds to be correct to 'or if it is deemed there was any possibility that the player might have had the intention of playing small."
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 (PASS) - 3 as NF should be alertable as Forcing is Standard.

3 (Double) -3 as NF should not be alertable, since NF is Standard.
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I win A and play A then 10 (since, on the lead, I feel LHO is slightly more likely to hold the Q).
When LHO pitches a spade, I sigh and play the J - to keep an entry to hand (and to hope that RHO might duck, thinking I played the king).
On the return, I win A (in casae of a VERY unlikely stiff Q) and lead to K, to hand. West pitches a club and (foolishly) a second spade. Since he wouldn't have done that from 1098xx (which I might well have played for if he'd kept another spade), I now finesse J
Now I finesse J, cash K pitching a club (or a spade), cross to K and cash K. Down one on the double squeeze.
March 8
.

Bottom Home Top