Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Rosenberg
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“IMO you are slicing the remaining hands too thinly to make a subtle counter invite.”

No, that's not what I'm doing. What I'm doing is having a general default rule and following it. I already said I'm pretty certain the rule is not optimal for all auctions. But it will avoid misunderstandings - the sort that cause experts to play slam in a partial, or overreach and get doubled in a game.
Nov. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand what you're saying. You talk about opening bid opposite a LR the same way as if it were a 5-card 1M opening facing a 4-card LR.

I'd think more like 1m-1M, 2M. We need to find the values for game AND we need to establish if the fit is 7-card or 8-card. And if a 4-4 fit we'll want about 25 HCP for game.
Nov. 19
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ercan: It's not that I haven't made up my mind. It's simply that bidding 2 with 4-card is a gamble. If partner bids 3 you have to accept that you can no longer ‘show’ the clubs below 3N. Once partner bids 3, 3eM by opener will be assumed to be 1-suiter.

I think it's a reasonable gamble with 6-4. In fact, it's clear to bid this way as long as you intend to bid past 3N. But, obviously, you did not make that determination.

Opener's hand in the OP has a good slam facing Qxx and kxxx regardless of major suit values - but that slam might need to be in clubs.
Nov. 19
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ercan: Your analogy is not valid. It's Standard for responder to have a way to invite in a new suit after 1N rebid. But there is no way in Standard for opener to immediately show invitational values in a new suit. You would need a special agreement.

Of course, the 2 rebid in the OP auction is not as wide range as after 1-1M. I never said it was. After 1-1M, responder's range is very wide - opener needs a huge hand to JUmp Shift.
But after the OP auction, responder's range is narrow - say 7+-11-, so opener would now be GF with value of 18 - maybe even value of 17 (rather than ‘risking’ 2. So there the ‘value’ range becomes 12-17 minus.
Nov. 19
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This auction is quite complicated.

First West. There was a lot of talk about bidding 3 over 3 - which feels clear - though see analysis of East's bidding below.
I saw no mention of West bidding TWO spades which is probably correct here. Why not, having denied 4-card , bid where you live?

Now East. What does his auction mean? 2 is a GF. If he had short hearts with a 1-suiter, THAT is a 3 bid over 1N - those suggesting it with this hand need to explain how partner knows if their clubs are AQ10x or Ax.

And if opener had 4-card , he could start with 2 (except with 4-card also).

So 2 is either a 1-suiter with worry OUTSIDE of hearts OR (maybe) 4-card that wanted to bid 3 next - as opposed to direct 3 which we might want to depict 5-card .
But it looks as if you can only handle this 4-card thing if partner bids cheaper than 3. So maybe it's more practical for opener to just rebid 3 here - then follow with 3 over 3.
Still, I sympathize with 2. The auction COULD go ‘nicely’.

After West's 3, what is the language of East's 3-level bids? Well, just thinking about the 1-suiters, 3 should show CLUB worry and 3 should show SPADE worry. (Heart worry would have bid 3 over 1N) This is why it's not so clear that WEst was so wrong to bid 3N over 3.

What would 3N over 3 by opener be? I'm guessing it would be a hand with no special worry - but was hoping to hear 3 over 2.
Nov. 18
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ercan: “, is it absolutely certain that three clubs is forcing?”

If you're playing Standard, then yes.

“ Obviously, two clubs would be non-forcing; so how does East invite with clubs and diamonds?”

You could ask exactly the same question after 1(P)-1)P. Presumably you will concede that 3 is forcing there and 2 is wide-range. For me, 2 is 12-19 in value - say 11-18 HCP.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would say balancing with a double is as clearcut as finessing for the K with a 10-card fit. it could lose, but is definitely the percentage action.

I agree that the criticism of 3 was over the top.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kel: Right - I was avoiding discussing ‘new suit over the cuebid’.

My notes have it covered (big surprise). After TO double and 1-level advance, I play doubler's cuebid DENIES 3-card support for advancer's suit, and advancer's 2-level bid in a new suit is NF. For example, with xxx, xxx, xxxx, xxx, after (1)X-(P)1. (P)2
advancer would bid 2.

New suit at the THREE-level over the 2-level cue is values but NF (Forcing if a reverse) with one exception: 2 then 3 shows no values.

New suit facing ANY level cuebid after an OVERCALL is F1

There's more ‘stuff’ but I'm not going to write everything.

So your first example would be NF for me. Your second example is a bit weird. Overcaller bid Michaels(?). The meaning of 3 looks unclear. 3 just looks like a LT game try. Sounds like we're getting to game.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Andy B: “it commits us to the three-level after we've both shown values but not found an eight-card fit.”

Yes, you could make this rule - or any rule. But, absent prior discussion/rule, I don't think the partnership should feel they are on safe ground.

In your example, I would not be comfortable bidding 3 as advancer with a hand that wanted to be in game. On the other hand, I think a good case can be made that 31d GF is ‘better’.
Perhaps still better would be to play that 3 in your auction is EITHER a ‘weaker’ raise to 3 OR some GF. And that the direct raise to 31h is GF. Maybe that's what the robots will be playing in the year 3000 - sneering at the idea of playing anything else.

But for now we need general rules that we can apply. I guess your rule above could be one. But,

Change the auction to this:

(1)X - (1) 2, (P) 3 -(P) 3
or
(1)X - (2) 2!8, (P) 3 -(P) 3

And not only would I be uncomfortable making the final call with a GF, I think I'd want the agreement to be NF.

So it seems there is a difference (at least for me) in overcall auctions and TO double auctions.
I guess the difference is that overcaller cannot make a forcing bid in a new suit, and has less defined holdings in the non-overcalled suit(s) - so ‘needs’ the cuebid as forcing more. Also because advancer has less of a clear reason as to why overcaller might be cuebidding.

My point is that I want a rule. Without the rule, I don't feel comfortable either making or passing the ‘key’ bid.
Right now, my rule is that ‘cuebid by intervening side does not promise another bid if partner makes a minimum bid in a previoiusly bid suit’.
That rule may not be (in fact I'm certain is not) optimal. But it covers all the questions and leads to confidence - no misunderstandings.

There are many areas where I have seen experts have big (sometime loud) misunderstandings due to believing they ‘knew’ something while their partner ‘knew’ something else. Apparently, the OP auction would not be one of these.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The title of this article is the punchline of a joke my dad used to tell. It went “Dear Sir, I have just found a black disc with a hole in the middle of it. Is this a record?”

With today's generation(s) this joke would not even be understood any more. Of course, some might say that's a good thing…
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe South had Qx, x, Q10xx, Q10xxxx and goes down 1100, so this hand wasn't part of the problem…
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John A: As I already said elsethread, the ‘Standard’ definition of a cuebid is very different for opening side and intervening side.

When we open, without other agreement, cuebid always creates a GF (except for responder's immediate cuebid.)

When we intervene, per my several examples, cuuebid does not create a GF - and does not even promise another bid if partner makes a minimum bid in a previously bid suit.

It looks like the expert community has ‘invented’ an exception - cuebid after jump bid - which is fine for them to do. But I see no rule or logic which makes (or would have made before this article) confidence in this justifiable.
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm pretty sure the answer is no. I did not.
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
However difficult it is to solve these problems, I feel it's multiple times more difficult to create them.
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peter F: Actually, despite what it said in the OP, and what Zia told me in advance, and what your comment says, there were no “beeps”. The computer simply flashed “Wrong PLay” on the screen.
A small part of my first article in Bridge Today dealt with this.
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From Page 2: “On the twelve par hands we each messed up three of them, and they were the SAME THREE (first, last and one in the middle). We aced the other nine. ”

This would mean I made 4 total ‘errors’, and Bart 3.

My recollection is slightly different. I think (or, at least, thought) that I got 8 hands without error but made mistakes on four, and twice made two mistakes - a total of 6 ‘errors’. Whereas Bart made a total of 5 ‘errors’ (I don't know how they were distributed.)

Now I'm not sure which version is correct - or if the truth lies somewhere in between.
Nov. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Amnon: ‘Do not invent a bid at the slam level. Even though you think ’this must mean “X”', partner will think ‘this must mean “Y”’ (or will simply have no idea what it means).

The rule is borne of experience; of myself (long ago); of partners and teammates (sadly, still); of people I have kibitzed; and (thankfully) of opponents.

Of course it looks like this OP didn't conform to the rule, because the ‘invention’ was read. So the addendum should be added ‘except when partner bids fast and folds up his cards - that is ALWAYS to play’.

Presuming one is not willing to win via the addendum, that brings us back to the earlier rule before the addendum: ‘Do not invent a bid at the slam level’.

(With a slight nod to Rob Reiner.)
Nov. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
TWO hearts is forcing. In Standard, if doubler bids a new suit facing a free bid, new suit is F1.
Of course, ELC is played by some. But it's not Standard.
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peter F: Sorry, I don't have time for a ‘proper’ answer to the OP. For now, I'll just say that I think a ‘general’ idea that either light openings or sound openings is clearly better is false.
I think it's more important that the partnership be on the same wavelength. I also think it's better for players to be in their ‘comfort zone’ - whatever that may be.
And I'll repeat - vulnerability really matters.
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's Standard, when OUR side has opened the bidding, that any cuebid of opponent's suit is GF (Exception: Responder's direct cue is LR or better). Of course, pairs can (and do) make further exceptions.

But when THEIR side has opened, this principle does not remotely apply. Look at these sequences:

(1)1-(P)2, (P)2
(1)X-(P)1, (P)2 - (P)2
(1)X-(1)1, (P)2 - (P)2
(1)1-(P)1, (P)2 - (P)2
(1)1-(P)1, (P)2 - (P)2
(1)1-(P)1, (P)2 - (P)2 - (P)2

None of these ‘should’ be forcing - and I doubt many experts think any of them is.

I consider the basic ‘Expert Principle’ (not sure if it's ‘Standard’) is this:

'When THEY open, cuebid by our side is not only not a GF - if partner makes a minimum bid in a suit previously bid by our side, the cuebid does not even promise another bid'.'

I note that they are some ‘free bid auctions’ in my list above.

Now the OP auction is different in that there was not just a ‘free bid’ - there was a jump. Does this change the nature of the cuebid?

There was some talk above suggesting that the cuebid, combined with the value shown by the jump ‘must’ create a GF. This is not logical in itself. If the jump shows more values, it can simply be that the cuebid can be a hand with ‘lesser’ invitational values.

The question to answer is this: do we want doubler to have the ability to invite game showing 4-card support AND to invite game showing 3-card support. IF 3 in the OP is played as a GF, then we cannot do this. We must invite with 3, showing 3 or 4.

But if the cuebid is not played as GF, now you can use the raise as 4-card invite and the cuebid as a 3-card invite (or some GF).

I was pretty surprised at how lopsided the vote was for GF. From the vote, I've learned that, at least over a jump, unless I've specifically discussed it, I'm not ‘safe’ in passing 3 over 3 in the OP auction. Partner might mean it as forcing.

I think, despite the huge vote for GF, that there is likely some BS here from the experts who voted that way. That, ‘feeling’ like a raise shows 4 (or, at least. doesn't show enough interest in 3N) they would bid 3 on the 3-card invite hand - and then pass 3. Kit springs to my mind - he has a history of passing forcing bids.
Nov. 15
.

Bottom Home Top