Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Gill
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Second round? That's actually fine as I can effectively fall back on David's line below. I think if RHO wins the K and plays a heart I can pitch my losing diamond, but as long as LHO ruffs from 5 and plays a trump I'm pretty sure I'm toast.

I was originally thinking that this defense might be unclear enough that I shouldn't commit to playing LHO for the KQ but I'm thinking David's line below is better. Certainly saying A heart was clear was an overstatement.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm still not convinced that I can make it on many layouts, but it seems clear to start with A and then continue a heart.
Jan. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, that would clearly be wrong. It's over LHO's 3NT bid.
Dec. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm in the forcing with a diamond stopper camp. Stoppers in both minors are important here since they could have 5 of either. What shape would you really want to bid 2 natural on - it almost has to be 6 diamonds, and that is pretty unlikely with RHO having 4+ diamonds. And anyway the window for needing to bid 2 over 2 is so small with diamonds known to be breaking 4-x or 5-x (if RHO is sane).
Dec. 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To be fair before that thought my first one was “wow I'm really committed to this psych”
Dec. 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
* I actually don't think partner promises 3 spades. I just don't see what else you can do but double if you have Ax AQx AKQxxx xx or something like that. I'm not even totally convinced it's wrong with x AQJx AKQxxx Ax - it's not like overcalling 3NT is that appealing and that seems like your only other real option.
* I almost posted this at favorable instead of what actually happened. Now you couldn't even come up with a favorable 2 opening so the subset of hands where you might want to bid 2 here is even smaller. How far does it have to go before it's not worth it? What if you had a multi 2 to show a 2-7 HCP preempt and 2M showed 8-11?
* Curious if anyone could come up with a good meta to handle things like this. Surely hands with 0-2 (say) HCP and 6 spades are rare here but you definitely could have one. Or does it just have to be “well it's possible to construct a hand where this bid is natural so it's natural”.

For the record I was a little surprised Noble answered as he did as usually I'm the one who thinks things are forcing when he doesn't.
Dec. 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, hence the “~” on the original 19-22.
Dec. 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Coulda have been more specific I suppose. Double and min pull is 19-22, double and jump shift is GF.
Dec. 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No special agreements.
Dec. 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah I missed the PH status - you could still have a slam but I agree it's anti-pct. Still, the 2 bidder could have a lot more and then you will get too high.
Dec. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's possible to construct hands where partner would pass it out and your side could profitably bid 4. The problem is that partner isn't passing 4 with your example hand since he can make a slam opposite many normal 4 bids.
Dec. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very important to learn to pass with hands like this, especially with length in their suit. If you belong in 4 partner isn't going to pass it out.
Dec. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed we did and thanks!
Dec. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Guess this was a dud. I was thinking that since doubler could be weaker in balancing seat this might be too strong, but evidently I didn't make it strong enough.
Dec. 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah I was wondering how to do that actually, thanks. Will update the articles.
Nov. 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Depends a lot on your style. If you would raise to 2 holding a 35(32) minimum then I think you have to bid 3 on this.
Nov. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure - unfortunately the vugraph archive for this quarter was somehow overwritten by the first quarter so both quarters show up as the same boards.
Nov. 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
* This was not in Precision, though I think this is a normal minimum opener unless maybe you're playing EHAA
* I think 2 would survive partner's 2245 13 since he should raise 3 to 4. The bigger worry is a 2245 18 where he thinks we have a fit and drives to slam.
* I started out liking a fake 2 rebid on 3 on hands like this - the problem is that you now have less shape than advertised, and usually the way to show that is to bid NT, but you chose this rebid in the first place to AVOID bidding NT. This is why I think some artificiality is necessary in these auctions to achieve optimal results.
* For the record I raised to 3 at the table, but I thought 2, 2 and 2NT were all reasonable choices. Not often a bid in 4 different strains is under consideration!
Nov. 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I happen to prefer this style, particularly in an unfamiliar partnership, because I think it really simplifies a lot of sequences that would otherwise require lots of experience/judgment/artificiality to sort out. I could certainly be convinced that a top-level partnership with lots of experience sorting out major suit length later could do better, but for my dollar I'd rather spend the system discussion time elsewhere in a casual partnership.

All that being said, this is also a way more interesting problem than if 2 were a catchall, where I'd imagine it would attract a comfortable majority vote.
Nov. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, glad you're enjoying. I wonder what the difference ought to be between those sequences. Certainly partner could bid 5NT with + planning to correct 6 to 6, or with just spades looking to choose between 6 and 6NT. I agree that 4 then 6 will likely get the message across, I suppose maybe if partner raises diamonds with 1345, say, you might get to an inferior fit? I dunno if I would have felt as good about bidding a 4-card suit over 5NT, fortunately I had an easy choice on the actual deal.
Nov. 4, 2017
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
.

Bottom Home Top