Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Gill
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A 3NT bid in this auction really ought to be this hand. 3NT over a minor suit rebid is a hand that improved into a GF because partner has length there. Since you'd always raise hearts with that hand, it seems like 3N is not needed as a natural bid. Obviously I would never pull on partner without discussion.
June 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 3 shows values I would bid 3 not 3N.
June 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also passed like the majority, but I thought it was a very close decision. Today partner held Qxx Ax AKQxxx Kx so slam was very good and bid at the other table after a 1 opening from West.
June 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the responses. At the table, partner broke tempo before 3. I thought this was a clear GF at red IMPs so I bid game anyway. Opponents thought this hand was nothing beyond a LR and called the director, but didn't pursue the issue when 4 went down. Partner had a hand where nobody would accept a LR and was just making sure he got the system right. I thought it would be good to check on my assertion that pass was not a LA with this hand at red IMPs.
June 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's a tradeoff for sure. For our troubles we get a system that handles all of responder's 4-card LR+ hands, including singleton splinters, in a way that's symmetric, easy to remember, and always offers either player a step to make a last train try after partner shows shortness. That also means we can play 3M+1-4M-1 as 2-tier void splinters and we have an additional free bid at the 3-level compared to separating out the 4-card LRs. We think all that is worth it but certainly possible we're wrong.
June 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Guess this one was a bit of a dud. I thought the A was normal but always good to sanity check these things. RHO held x AKQJTxxx AK Kx, and LHO Axxx 9 QJT98x xx, so a spade lead removes dummy's only entry before the diamonds can be unblocked.
June 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Using space for game tries when a 4-card LR is so tightly constrained doesn't make any sense. This is our strong raise so room is needed for slam investigation.
June 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it's very close. Partner isn't going to reveal anything with a minimum in our system and slam is possible opposite the right minimum (say, Kxx Kxxxxx !KQxx -). Opponents are much less likely to bid when I have length/strength in spades and balanced shape.
June 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed
June 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 was partner's only non-GF option, everything else is GF.
June 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Normally I'd agree but I think there's too great a chance we belong in spades to bid this, particularly at matchpoints.
May 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If we trust the bidding, declarer has a club stopper and 4243, 4252, or 4153. Dummy is likely to hold 5 hearts, so it seems like at least 50/50 that declarer has a 5-2 heart fit and we know it's breaking 3-3. Even if he doesn't, he will often have a 5-2 diamond fit, and that's breaking 3-3 too. I think it's time to try to establish some tricks.
May 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Haven't I already shown like 20+ to double then cue? If partner couldn't scrape up a 2M bid or a X of 2 why do I want to be declaring 3 in a 6-? fix that's more likely than normal to be breaking badly when I am very likely to go plus against 2. I think 3 here has to be a mountain.
May 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That looks like a 3NT overcall to me.
May 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Surely whatever it means 3 is forcing, right? If I had some normal big hand with clubs that can't bid 3NT (say AKxx KQx - AKJTxx) wouldn't I just pass 1?
May 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think bridge logic implies that partner has clubs at this point. I know ostensibly hands with clubs should pass to start, but it's possible that partner just thought his hand was too strong to pass and wrong for 3NT. His calls after that pretty much rule out everything else:

* If he had a balanced or even semi-balanced hand he'd have doubled 1, 2, passed or bid NT at some point depending on his pattern and stoppers.
* If he had 5 he'd have bid 1 or bid 2 over 2
* If he had 5, he'd have doubled 1
* If he had (3?) 4+ diamonds, he'd surely have doubled 2

I think partner has a hand like AKQx Ax - AKQxxxx. It just seems like all pass is going to happen way too often with this hand.
May 18, 2017
Mike Gill edited this comment May 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
9 is just clearly the right play in spades for maximizing your tricks. If it wins (and why shouldn't it) you retain your AQJ and can choose to power out a third trick in the suit if you want. You need a strong reason to reject this play since who knows how the play will develop.
May 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree, and I think you'd need a very strong reason to not play the 9 and I sure can't think of one.
May 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This would be much tougher at matchpoints where getting to hearts instead of clubs at any level could be the whole board. At IMPs, you just can't afford to risk not being able to run clubs in hearts. In clubs I have 8 tricks plus whatever partner has in hearts - in hearts I might only have 3 or 4.
May 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe Ax xxxxx xx AQxx over 4th seat 1? I actually play it as inv+ normally so in that context I would here too, but I think there's some value in being able to say no seriously my hand is worth a GF now so pard doesn't just jump to game over Drury. You might be right that another use is better tho depending on the rest of your system.
April 21, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top