Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Gill
1 2 3 4 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My initial thought was “this really can't matter so I'll just lead a count card” but I guess it can if pard has AQJT9x so best not to be blowing it in that case.
Aug. 8, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The more I sit here and think about it, the more I think 2 is clear. If partner has the K, this will make slams opposite many minimums - if not, then it's just a 4 bid. We need more information before telling partner whether we have extras or not. I think 4 is ok, since most of the time we don't have a slam, and it's not clear we will find out what we need to know anyway. I think I would actually bid 4 at matchpoints to avoid giving anything away. The bid I'm sure is wrong is 4. It holds a gun to partner's head when we have no 5-level safety, we have a source of tricks in clubs AND no spade control AND only 3 trumps instead of the ~4414 partner will expect, and since we're unlimited does this show 14 HCP? 16? 19? How is partner ever to determine when to move?
May 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
- AKQT AKJTx Kxxx was the hand that prompted this discussion
Feb. 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I really don't understand why so many people want to put the whole board on guessing how RHO lost his mind. There are just so many ways for passing to be wrong w/w at BAM. Even if RHO did pass a game force, maybe game was down (on the spade lead you're about to get or otherwise) and you're losing the board because they're going plus in 1d.
Oct. 30, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While Kit's line of reasoning seems infallible from a bridge logic perspective (well, provided declarer didn't make a mistake, anyway, which may or may not be a valid inference), I'm not satisfied with it as an answer to Ron's question. If you think of that inference, then sure, you have an ethical obligation to not cash out. But what if you don't? Surely no bridge player at any level will always think of everything. I have no doubts that Ron did his best to think of a logical reason for the position of the J, but he missed it, as I'm sure I might have.

Should we punish a player who probably just made a normal mistake on a hand where his partner gave UI because his behavior is indistinguishable from one who DID think of it but chose to act unethically? Does it depend on the level of the player/the level of the mistake? And (maybe most importantly) if the answer to the first question is yes, what the heck are you supposed to do when you're in this situation, knowing that if you have missed anything your result might be rolled back anyway? I personally tend to err on the side of always punishing myself unless I'm more or less 100% sure, but is that the right course? And can you ever even be 100% sure you haven't missed something, especially given it's harder to think of such inferences when you “know” the right answer…
Aug. 17, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sylvia is correct. We play 2d = min 3-card raise (and a hand that wants to raise on 3). Usually this is a hand with a singleton or shortness in the other major. We do have a way to show a max 3-card raise as well. Over 2d we play:
- 2OM = ART 5+M, inv+
- 2M = only nf bid
- 2N, 3M = inv
- everything else GF with the obvious meaning

Responder does have to rebid 2N on all inv hands without a fit. It's not the prettiest part of the system but inv hands are rare, especially when opener is so limited in strength.

FWIW I would have opened 2c on the actual hand and I'm really shocked only one other person has mentioned this.
July 10, 2013
1 2 3 4 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
.

Bottom Home Top