Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Gill
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, first off 2 followed by 2 doesn't show AQJTxx or anything like it necessarily. If partner shows a stiff club I can cool my heels and pay off to stiff K. Assuming he bids, say, 3 to deny a singleton and show a minimum, I can just bid 3NT and see if he cues 4. If I want to force cooperation, I could even cue 4 and if he doesn't sign off then he has the K since I denied a control. That's probably not warranted here though.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So how is partner supposed to know that AQxxx AKxx xx Kx is good and AQxxx xx AKxx Kx is bad over this?
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This seems like a game of finding out what you need to know. I want to ask not tell, and I don't want partner to waste his time telling me about his overall shape. Standard Jacoby actually works out great here. I get to find out if partner has a singleton club, then hand strength and controls, and keycard if all goes well.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I happen to agree that both of these calls are enough within the realm of possibility that probably no action is warranted. West could have added 3 points for a 7-card suit and some more for shortness, and a conservative East might think they only have 13 points and all these heart losers to deal with or maybe they've just seen West's “invitational” raises before. People have to be allowed to make mistakes and (over)compensate for their partner.

But, saying there's nothing to discuss doesn't seem right either. Surely there's a point at which if both partners happen to take offsetting views on the same that are “absurd enough”, it smells fishy. I mean keep taking away HCP from West and giving them to East until basically East is essentially fielding West's psych. If it's past the point for you, then file a player memo, that's what it's for! As others have said, calling the director seems out of line.

Now, if the whole rest of them match East was the aggressive one and West the conservative one, I might file one anyway.
April 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If we're not bidding over 4 then we have two options for a message to send to partner. It seems clear that whichever way you want to arrange them, one means “I think maybe we should bid” and the other means “I don't think we should bid”. That part seems uncontroversial, but the poll choices also bake in judgment about when one should bid or not. I would guess that nearly all balanced hands would double, but that part seems less clear.
April 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess my source is experience? But I suppose pointing to Culbertson sounds way more solid!

If the 7-card suit is strong then it's usually better to declare it trumps so you don't have to worry about it getting shut out. Drawing trumps and getting back to the long suit winners is often a bit dodgy since you usually don't have a side entry that you can keep til after trumps are drawn. If they can tap the 7-4 hand twice it's pretty much over (and they do have 2 suits to maybe do that in), it's difficult to maintain control. It's just a lot of work for 8 trumps to do to set up the long suit with ruffs, draw trumps and presumably guard one or more of the 7-4 hand's short suits.

The times when I think it's right to pursue the 4-4:
* At the slam level it's usually better to play in the 4-4 since one extra loser in the long suit is a huge deal
* If the long suit has too many losers
* If the 7-4 hand is very strong then there are usually enough entries that you don't have to worry about your long suit getting shut out.
April 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems wrong to bid 2 on some random 6322 11 count and this hand with arguably several additional tricks of playing strength. With a few exceptions, 7-4 hands don't play very well in 4-4 fits, so I don't even feel bad about burying the hearts.
April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, 4 “accomplishes” obstructing them better than 3. The problem is that 4 just offers them all winning options. Bidding on will probably work since things are breaking. Doubling get at least 500 and often 800.
April 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Most of the time, we'd like to double 1 if partner has 4 but not if has 3?
March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you have to do that if you're playing pass as NF. But it's a trade-off right? You are still giving up accuracy in doubling them. Either partner passes with 3 or not, but you're either doubling their 8-fit or not doubling their 7-fit. I would have thought getting that decision right would be more important than occasionally bidding over 1 when it's wrong.
March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm willing to be shouted down on this, but I was just very surprised by the votes thus far. Sure we *might* have passed with a weaker hand but it just seems like letting them off the hook when we have the goods is giving up a lot (especially if they're unfav).

On a side note, this also seems like one of those situations where this understanding is MUCH better if the opponents don't know about it. I'd run much more frequently if I knew about this.
March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've just seen this go wrong so many times where one world class player thinks their partner just has to have X or Y for their bidding and they don't. There are times where you have to rely on these sorts of judgments ‘cause you didn’t have room, but here all you had to do was have either player bid keycard at any point to bid an easy grand or avoid a bad one.

Also I'm not saying you should bid 4 then continue over 4. If you're going to bid on over 4 you should just be bidding keycard yourself over 4 since you haven't gained any information. Yes it's better if partner bids keycard but not having either player bid keycard is much worse!
March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just so we're all straight on what this means. I pick up a 2263 15 count and pass 1X for penalties. They run to 1 and now I can't pass to see if partner wants to double them without risking playing 1 undoubled?
March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do not understand the votes for the second option and suspect not everyone read the third option…
March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I want to invite more so whichever of pass/3 does that.
March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But wouldn't you bid the same way with KJxxxx xx Ax Axx? That's arguably a better hand.
March 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Getting past keycard if partner is going to make the last decision is not free. *We* know that we have enough keycards if partner has anything remotely resembling a slam try opposite a minimum. But we're staring at 4 of the 6 and partner, who made a slam try with at most 2 opposite a minimum might be a bit nervous about that. Remember partner could still have a mountain and be looking for a grand if you have all the keycards. It's really hard to bid grands without keycard. You can safely bid keycard here if you're bidding on - how can partner possibly have a slam try here off a club control and a heart control?
March 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've always wondered why this wasn't standard.
March 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also why didn't partner cue clubs? Or are we assuming that would show clubs?
March 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think rating this as 8+ and not bidding on are inconsistent. Not sure where the line should be, arguably 6-7 should be thinking about bidding on. Partner made a slam try knowing you had a min and you have the ace in the suit he's missing a control in and you think your hand is an 8/10 in context. Geez what do you need?
March 23
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
.

Bottom Home Top