Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Rosenberg
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David B: In your suggested line, it's probably better, after finesse wins, to cross to dummy to lead a low heart. This loses to 7-0 spades (on the occasions that you now lose two trump tricks). It also loses when LHO has stiff K and 6-card .
It gains when stiff K has 7-card or RHO has stiff K and 7-card . But all the infintesimal net gains (if any) probably don't reach the importance of the ‘normal’ overtrick when RHO has stiff K.

“John's line isn't as bad as Marty makes out…”

As stated, it's pretty silly. Why cross in spades twice and ruff two diamonds BEFORE the A?

Yes, I think you're correct that Reese perhaps chose a poor example for his particular point. It would have been better if dummy had only one spade entry (or none).

I think the problem would be far more interesting if the dummy were 3-4-3-3.
July 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
CraiG Z: “ I believe that the resulting use of the 3NT opening to show a 4 level pre-empt in either minor *is* a part of the NAMYATS convention.”

Your belief is incorrect. NAMYATS only defines the 4m opening. Certainly you COULD play 3N as a 4m preempt - and I think the majority who play NAMYATS probably do. But it would still be NAMYATS if you chose to play 3N as Gambling - or anything else - even 6-5 in the majors.

As far as I know, there is no requirement to have a 4m preempt as part of your bidding system.
July 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Henrik: If East does all those things then (unless he's psyching or psychic) East will have 6(+)-card . And the OP North will ‘know’ his partner has spades.
July 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I doubt if there is any jurisdiction where 2, artificial showing 16-18, balanced, is not an alert.
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know first-hand that Kit has high respect for Zia. He's more than once told me of something good Zia did and said ‘nobody else would even think of that’.
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
However, I think sometimes we DON'T want more teams. There are certain numbers where we'd rather not have one more. Which is why we always say that teams can enter late at OUR option…
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, I won't answer for you. I'll let your ‘answer’ speak for itself.
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eduard: “…you know the result: -3400. For every competent player this result is unacceptable.”

I'm presuming that if South had not redoubled, and the result had been -1700, you would have found this also “unacceptable”.

So I asked you what you would do with the OP North hand after 2(4). You said you'd bid 4. Therefore you're willing to risk -1700. Does that mean you're not a competent player? I doubt it. It simply means you were making the best percentage guess given the agreements you had.
Just as North did in the OP. And just as South did in the OP.

You talked about your “universe” and my “universe”. First, you seem way to wrapped up in this one hand.
Second, You left one thing out of your “universe” - that sometimes, when you double 4 they make it. Worse, sometimes they run to 4N and make it.
So these are losses, sometimes big losses, that happen in your universe, but not in mine. (I call it a “loss” when I fail to score a big gain that I could have - the result in the other room is not relevant. Not winning 12 imps when we should have is, to me, a big “loss”.)

Third, you got my universe wrong. I don't, as South, double 4 (unless I feel confident that the opponents can't make 4 or 4N), But, as North, I NEVER BID 4. I double as pass/correct. In my universe, Double is ALWAYS pass/correct.

Even on the 2(4) auction I gave you, I still double as pass/correct. Yes, I give up on having a penalty double. But I feel that is what you would call ‘low turnover’.
In YOUR universe after 2(4), if partner has hearts YOU go for -1700. In MY universe, I go (on a bad day) -790, or (on a good day) +200 or 500 or more.

I dislike methods in general that have unspecified suits. My preferred methods, for example, include no Unspecified Michaels.
However, when I do play some method with an unspecified suit, my preference is to have the subsequent bidding avoid disaster due to lack of knowledge about which suit.
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eduard: “You dont want to learn anything.”

I always want to learn But so far on this thread, I have learned nothing about bridge from you. I HAVE ‘learned’ a few things about you personally - none of them very complimentary.

* * * * *

“In my opinion bridge is a game where people constantly learn. Good bridge player is composed from thousands little knowledge.”

I agree - but I'd say ‘millions’ not “thousands”. Probably hundreds of millions.

* * * * * *

“Btw: I never use in this discusion word ”egregious“. Argumentation with this word is straw man argumentation.

I use once word serious.”

“Egregious” is the perfect word to describe the sort of error that caused the damage (as opposed to the infraction and/or a lesser error causing the damage).
I believe the standard in the Law is “extremely serious error” – which is like “egregious” – but uses an extra word.

“Serious” is an ok word - not quite strong enough.
But, to humor you, and to avoid a semantic argument, I'll use “serious” rather than “egregious” from now on.

* * * * * *

“South did not double 4 with his ”long“ suit. This is serious error.”

1) This South had no agreement with his partner that he must double 4 with hearts.

2) South assumes (due to the MI) his partner will have a heart void and be aware of the possibility that his suit might be hearts

3) South knows that doubling 4 could lead to disaster if:

a) They make because of the double

b) They successfully run to 4N (or to 5 or any other making contract)

Given these facts - especially 1) and 3(b) - I do not think it is reasonable to call South's pass of 4 an error. It is certainly not reasonable to call it a “serious” error.
No matter how strong your opinion is that 1) SHOULD be the N-S agreement, that does not make it true.
* * * * * *

“Am I learning now”

I'll know you're learning when I read you saying ‘South’s pass of 4 was not a serious error'. I won't hold my breath.
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My question was very clear. You are applying a rule for South - to not create what you call “high turnover”. My question is why not also apply this rule to North?

Ok, I understand you don't want to answer the question.

I will deal with your “universes” (which you have incomplete as regards yourself, and just plain wrong as regards me) in a separate comment.
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed R: Isn't East's failure to inform North correctly about the system an infraction?
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or a second really bad misguess….
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My first question is this. You said that “it is a good expert bidding strategy to not allow high turnover in critical situation”

And what you meant was that South, with hearts, should ALWAYS double to avoid this high turnover.

What I am asking you is why doesn't the same ‘rule’ apply to North in the OP? Clearly this particular North had no agreement that South must double. Obviously, bidding 4 is a “higher turnover” than passing. Even without South's redouble. bidding 41s cost at least 18 imps. So why shouldn't North equally avoid the high turnover?
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ah. So my line can be improved simply by drawing the second trump in hand. If 2-2, claim. If 3-1 cross to Q and THEN run 0. Makes if LHO has QJxxx(x) and a stiff and Q (or xxxxx!).

No need to risk Est ruffing the heart. In my mind I wa thinking I was probably down then anyway. But silly to play second to Q as I suggested.
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You might well be right. But I'm not sure what “if the West hand has a small heart and a singleton club” has to do with it.
My instinct was it was a little higher than 91%.
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve: If that is the case then I think South did nothing seriously wrong.
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eduard: I will respond to your comment AFTER you answer the following two questions:

1) You said: “it is a good expert bidding strategy to not allow high turnover in critical situations. For example, in a high level competetive bidding. If player have two sensible choices, it is better to choose one that doesn't a big turn.”

Couldn't that far better be said of Norh's 4 bid in the OP, when he could have passed and avoided the “big turn” here?

This is (I think) the fourth time I have asked this question. If you ever answered it then, sorry, I missed it.

2) If the bidding went 2(4), what do you think North should do with the OP hand?
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“In last position you pass or bid 4?”

Because I play sound preempts I would act over 2. I would double 2 as Pass/Correct.

If I play 2 as unsound (as apparently this South did), then as North, I have to guess. I'd probably shrug my shoulders and pass 4. Too much danger that partner has hearts in an ‘unsound’ style. If partner has spades then maybe 4 and 4 both go down? Probably not (I reckon less than 5% chance), so in that case I say, maybe this unsound Multi thing actually carries some risks.
All methods which are based on an unspecified suit are inherently disaster-prone.

Perhaps if 2 virtually guarantees only a 5-card suit, it might be correct to play that, over 2, respnder's 2 bid is ‘raise with spades, bid 3m (or 2N) with hearts.’ Or perhaps, over the P/C double of 2, South should run to 3. Perhaps if North doubled 2, East would err and bid 4 anyway. There have been lots of disasters for both sides after Multi.

However, in NO circumstances would I criticize my partner for not doubling 4. If I agreed to play these methods AND misguessed over 4, then I'd blame the combination of my bad guess and the poor methods I agreed to.


* * * * *

“But certainly you will accept that this kind of discussion (remorse, etc) is not constructive.”

I don't know what that means, But I have long since accepted that no part of your argument with me rates to be constructive. You don't want to learn anything. You just want to stick with thinking your original opinion was correct. It was not.

An egregious error is an error that everybody knows is an error. Not only don't we not know that South's pass is an error, there is at least one (and probably several) world class players who think pass is correct.
The moment that you read Kit saying he would not double 4 (not to mention me saying it's not clear), you should have immediately realized you were wrong about your opinion of South's pass being an egregious error. Instead, you continue to argue and argue - with the same one argument.
I am NOT saying you cannot maintain the position that South should double 4. That is a reasonable position.
However, it is NOT reasonable to maintain the position that South's pass was an egregious error.
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is another line which has a high probability of success. A, to ace, to Q, run 9, ruff return, run all trumps (pitching and ), A, A, to K, finesse heart.

Cold if trumps are 2-2; cold if East has a honor or LHO has QJ doubleton. Cold if Q is singleton or doubleton, cold if the length is with the Q. Also makes if East has xxx and is marked with Q in the 2-card ending. All that seems to be clearly over 90%. Maybe even approaching 95% (though I'm pretty confident it's under that). I'm not sure whether Kit's line is better.

Couple more things. One of the ‘recoveries’ in Kit's line was not mentioned - Q109 onside.

Also after to ace, A, if the 10 falls in West, you can cross to a trump to lead the second heart.

Both of these add slightly to Kit's line.

And I think it's worth remembering that there must be some hand (not this one as far as I can see), where the first trump from hand should be JACK - overtaking when LHO has stiff 10.
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This has always worried me a bit. It doesn't sit right with me that pairs ‘normally’ have to file by a certain date, but if you entered later then the date is later. Is there at least some downside to entering later?
July 1
.

Bottom Home Top