Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Gill
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On what shape could you possibly be bidding 2 with only 4 clubs? With 4324 you'd make a support double and with 4234 and 4144 I sure hope you're passing.
Sept. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe but that’s irrelevant to our decision right?
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While I mostly agree with this, I think there is something here. *I* can absolutely adjust *my* tactics based on the opponents agreements and that's part of the game. The problem is that I have a partner who may figure out what's up and I think this leads to sort of perverse situation that there's no real way to police.

As an example, let's say our agreed style is to preempt Kit Woolsey aggressively 3rd seat fav. In trying to fully disclose we check “very light preempts” on our card and indicate it could be a 5-card suit even at the 3-level. Our opponents have the agreement that they play penalty doubles and forcing passes against 3rd fav opponents who have “very light” checked on their card for preempts. Now, if I pick up a borderline preempt, I'm allowed to use my bridge logic to judge not to preempt because of their agreement (IMO it's debatable whether this is correct or not, but let's go with it). Now suppose I do preempt and partner has a borderline raise of a normal preempt - normally he would pass since I will frequently have a total joke, but isn't he allowed to use the same bridge logic to conclude that I'll be more conservative when the opponents are playing penalty doubles and judge his hand to be a raise? Now, effectively, we are no longer playing “very light” preempts like is marked on our card, but there's really no way to prove this because, after all, preempting is just a judgment call.

I'm happy if someone can point out a flaw in this construction, but I haven't been able to think of one.
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not banned. You just can’t do it by agreement.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Facing a passed partner, I see no need to give them 2 extra levels of bidding room on a hand where they might be sniffing at slam.
Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A good agreement everyone should play is that when there’s only one bid available for stopper investigation like this it should ask for a stopper in the unbid major. The major is more likely to be unstopped since here partner woulda bid 2 with 4.
July 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don't think anyone has explicitly stated what I think to be the guiding factor for this decision. I think the line here depends on how much you think partner needs to have to make a reopening X without extra shape. You want to compete to at least 2S when you have roughly half the deck since you certainly have an 8-card fit in spades opposite a normal double. Not sure where my line is for the reopening X, probably would with 15 and no wastage. With this standard it seems like you can pass with 0-3 since if partner has < 15 then your odds of going plus are pretty low so seems like the gain is minimal.

With a really weak hand you're better off passing and pulling partner's second double because you don't want him getting overboard with a power double or just extra values.
July 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, you don't have any special agreements like that.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can assume that it's not 18-19 balanced, but no agreements beyond that.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have opened 2 and rebid 2NT
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree it's normal to bid 4 with 6-5 you're worth another call, but some 6-5 hands worth a bid are doubling 4 - maybe the most defensive 10%? Partner is going to pull with 3 spades unless he has defense and missing a 6-2 isn't so bad.

We agree 5 is too much.
May 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Haven't we sort of already implied a void (or at least a lot of extra offense) with 4 instead of doubling over 4. I think partner will often pass the double (and I think it's completely clear here to pass even with 3-4 in partner's suits given no high cards). Getting 500 (which you should against a reasonable declarer) seems way better than a not-even 50/50 5 contract.
May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wouldn't you bid 4 with this hand if the spades were KQJT instead of AKQ? That hand feels like a non-forcing pass to me so it seems like this hand with an extra offensive and defensive trick has to at least double.
May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If were playing bridge I think the downgrade has a lot more merit, but we seem to be playing all white matchpoints instead.
May 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure but that doesn't mean you have to make it when presented with new options?
May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Opener has no idea that the opponents are going above 4 and his partner could easily not know which minor to lead against 4M
May 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, we agree that if your opponents are going to treat any 3rd seat preempt the way a bull treats a cape it will be more effective to preempt on hands where we know they're going to get overboard. You must be playing different opponents than I, and I'll even throw in a suggestion for improving their game - forcing passes over all 3rd seat preempts!
May 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My preempting in 3rd seat announces that I don't think our side has game. This is not the same as announcing to the opponents that I think they have game. I know they do on this hand but they categorically don't. In fact, if I'm going to often preempt on minimum opening hands (as you suggest and as I do), the opponents will often not have a game.

For the record I don't think pass is crazy, but I think the disruptive power of 2 (especially given partner might be able to bump) is substantial.
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner can't double again with random balanced minimums - you don't keep announcing the same values twice. Now we have a double fit and roughly half the deck and are letting them play 2. Like, say, AJxx xx AKxx xxx where we're on a King-finesse through the opening bidder for *game*. I know that's perfect cards but we're also only talking about bidding 2 over 2.
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, I agree with us likely having no spade losers. But I would definitely pass that example hand- how on Earth is partner to judge what to do if we could have AKx or a void in their suit?
May 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
.

Bottom Home Top