Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Gill
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12 13 14 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have passed 2NT
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd certainly want to be there and definitely 6 over 6N.

Two main candidates for the line.
1) Hook T1. You're basically cold if it wins - cash the AQ and draw trumps if they're 3-2 otherwise play to ruff a spade in dummy for the 12th trick. If it loses now you're down immediately if West has Jxxx but otherwise you have chances, but probably going for a spade ruff in dummy as long as diamonds aren't 4-1 onsides.

2) Play a cross ruff line. Presumably hoping for 2 spades, 2 hearts, 1 club and 2 spade ruffs in dummy, 3 club ruffs in hand, and the AK. You need LHO to hold 4+ clubs (or 3 clubs and not the J), and you need RHO to hold 3+ spades (or 2 spades and not the J), plus you need 2 rounds of hearts to stand up.

Didn't do the math but feels like too many riders on bill #2.
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play:

2M+1 = serious superaccept
3M-1 = serious superaccept that doesn't want to declare (say AKxx xx AKQx xxx)
3M = non-serious superaccept

You can play whatever you'd like over 2M+1 if responder wants more information. Usually, though, responder doesn't care where opener's values or shortness are and you are just giving away information for nothing if opener discloses without being asked.
Feb. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that establishing a force is also an important purpose of this bid, but I think it would be very difficult to construct a hand that is interested in partner bidding 5/5 that isn't also at least a mild slam try. The example hand given above (Axx Qxx Axxx Axx) is an easy 4 then double 5. Axx xx AQxxx Axx looks like a 4 bid to me and I think I would bid a bad (but at least not no-play) slam opposite myself with on these cards.
Jan. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is why precision 1M openings are so good. Playing Standard you have to sign off here because partner is bidding 4 on any normal GF hand in case you have a 19 count. Here 4 shows at least mild slam interest because partner can comfortably just bid 4 with min GF hands.
Jan. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This was the companion hand to https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-mrq9s3z0bw/?cj=757974#c757974. The majority seem to be missing this game as we did. Are we all ok with this?
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think people missed this is a 14-16 NT cause passing seems crazy to me.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The way I think you should think about this sort of decision when you have a step between:
* 4 says “my hand is no longer worth my previous bidding in context”. You could be holding an 11 count with KQJ after all.
* 4 says “my hand is a minimum in context.” This could be either a good-fitting min or a hand with some extras that got worse.
* If you have extra values in context, then you take control either with keycard or control bidding past 4.
Jan. 17
Mike Gill edited this comment Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In Gatlinburg or the KO before the Spinderbilt where Bracket 1 is harder to win than some national events, this is understandable and arguably even correct. What is not understandable is this combined with the rule that you can only play up into Bracket 1.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don't get me started! Trying to play up as a young player with no masterpoints has always been one of the most frustrating things about playing knockouts. Heck I still don't really have any masterpoints. Really this is a hidden consequence of not having a meaningful ranking system, and that doesn't seem so likely to change either. Mostly though, I always hated that this creates my least favorite social dynamic - a situation where you are randomly punished for being honest. If you lie and say your team has 60k masterpoints the directors often won't check until after the event is underway, but if you tell them the situation you can't go back and lie so you end up playing bracket 3 winning every match by 100 and making no one happy. Sadly we found that the lying route seemed to do a lot better since even if they check your MPs they may still let you play up but not vice versa…
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The decision of whether or not to double when pass is forcing is very different. I agree that if you're playing forcing passes this is a clear double, but 1) this is not a FP situation even if you are pretty liberal about forcing passes and 2) the fact that this is a double playing FP really doesn't have that much bearing on what you should do if pass is not forcing. Not playing FP you just pass on minimum hands without any special offense or defense and I think this qualifies, especially given that you can't really think any spades are cashing unless East is totally insane.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4 is a pretty big overbid IMO. I would raise to 3 but I think this much closer to 2 than 4. The worst hand you can have for a 2 raise is 4522 with 16 HCP, and presumably some notrumpy 4522s are opening/rebidding NT. This auction is very different from Standard where partner has shown something.
Jan. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Surely I committed to passing this time if I didn’t bid last time
Dec. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why shouldn't RHO hold xxxxx AQ Axx xxx? I'm doubling because I think this could easily be making and I don't think most opponents would shoot this out.
Dec. 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's definitely potential for people playing this agreement to shade their bid frequently and not disclose so as to gain an advantage. I think trying to police this sort of thing when there's no evidence that the partner of the bidder is compensating for it is a losing battle. It's normal to open with fewer than normal HCP and extra shape for 1-level constructive openings so I guess I don't see why this is different?
Dec. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the issue in a non-regular partnership. You can bid what you like as long as partner doesn't have knowledge that the opponents don't.
Dec. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Strictly speaking, both East and West also bid too much…
Dec. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I mean not getting to at least 6 seems crazy. Here you'll easily avoid grand since partner will deny the cK when I ask for the trump Q.
Dec. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you have a way to ask for a club control specifically this seems like the 100% solution. I'm having a hard time coming up with how this could go wrong.
Dec. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Personally I have some moral ambivalence about a lifetime ban, but I'm tipped in favor by the difficulty of catching collusive cheaters combined with the possible high payoff for cheating. This makes it a really tempting proposition and so the punishments need to be extreme as a deterrent.

However, in the event that we don't get a lifetime ban enacted, let's at least agree to ban convicted collusive cheaters from ever playing with each other. This should definitely happen in terms of a partnership, I think it's open to debate whether they should be allowed on the same team. At least this way it would make it a good bit harder for them to find someone new who's willing to cheat. As far as I can tell, this was not a part of the current sentencing for any of the recently convicted pairs, and I know I'm not excited at the prospect of, say, a Nunes-Fisher partnership in future years.
Dec. 11, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12 13 14 15
.

Bottom Home Top