Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Gill
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed
Nov. 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the squeeze line is interesting, and I will admit to not giving it much consideration at the table, since it requires the finesse. I'm not 100% on exactly the right way to do vacant spaces but giving West 6 known cards and East only 1 feel wrong to me. We also know that East ought to have at least 5 diamonds for doubling 5 when my shape is unknown and I know my partner's exact shape and might rewind if I turn up with the rest of the diamond suit.

Depending on what you think Rodwell would bid with in a GF relay auction vulnerable holding the KT9 and maybe nothing much else, he probably has 4054, 4063, 3055, 3064, or 5053. I would probably bid with 6-5 or 7 diamonds and a void in the suit they're showing but it would depend on the hand for sure. I haven't run the numbers, but I suspect opposite those likely shapes playing for the drop comes out ahead.
Nov. 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nevermind, this works the same as 4-2 if you play for the drop.
Nov. 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I mean everyone makes mistakes and I'm the first to admit I usually give my opponents too much credit, but a) my opponent was Meckstroth and b) it's seems really farfetched that he would need to cover? Am I really trying a Chinese finesse at Trick 3 in a grand I freely bid after knowing literally my partner's whole hand?

Also am I missing something Anant on Jxxxx and the K onsides? I only count 4 spades, 2 clubs, 1 diamond, 5 trumps for 12 tricks, since I still can't get back to the long spade (I could take a diamond ruff but then I lose a spade winner).
Nov. 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I should also say I'm pretty confident I wouldn't have thought of this at the table, and it's pretty crazy. I think it's only in the running since everything else seems so unlikely to work.
Oct. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the main possible gain is when the suit is 3-3. Can West really be sure that I have a singleton after seeing his partner's 2? What if I needed 3 club tricks and held Jxx? I happen not to think Kxx AKQJxx K Jxx is quite a 3 bid, but remind me next time to duck the K and drop the J if I hold that! I was originally thinking that even if the suit is 4-2 this removes West's safe club exit, but after sorting through it I don't think this can matter.

I suppose in the real world there's also a reasonable chance the opponents get the signal wrong. I'm normally a fan of “discourage from 2 if you don't want a ruff” not “always give count”, but here you can't want a ruff from 2 if partner has 3+ clubs so I agree count is the indicated signal. However, the chances that both opponents are on the same page about that unless they're very good players is probably not so high.
Oct. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is it so crazy to duck T1? LHO will just think you have Jx and you're unblocking. With no entries to dummy shouldn't he play another club now to either give his partner a ruff (if he has KQxx) or prevent you from drawing trumps and taking any more than one club trick (if he has KQx).
Oct. 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We've been moving in this direction for a while as well. 1-2 is an awful auction, so definitely don't bid it if you might not want to play in hearts if partner raises! 1 - 2, on the other hand, is a great auction.

I play in a very scientifically minded partnership that hates having lots of one-off agreements. Having 1 - 2 - 3 set hearts is just way better for us. You gain an unambiguous (non-) serious 3/3NT with all your normal room to sort out values and controls for slam, an unambiguous control bid in spades as a heart slam try, and an unambiguous kickback 4 if you want it. Maybe if you play as much as Kit when it goes 1 - 2 - 3 - 3 you can make customized methods to sort out which suit is trumps for game and all the slam tries.
Oct. 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wouldn't take it as natural if their overcall promised 5-5
Oct. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here's the system we came up with, I'm sure there are others. It was designed to be easy to remember (shortness by either player is always shown with 3M+1 to 3M+3), avoid giving away information when there's no slam interest, and always offer the partner of the person showing shortness a chance to show interest below 4M. For the 3 bids that show shortness (3N-4 over spades), you can use whatever scheme you like to resolve where it is (replacement, HI-MID-LOW, …etc).

This is the system over 1, it's the same over hearts but shifted down a step:

1 - 2NT (4-card LR+):
— 3 normal min GF hand, usually 6-7 losers, no voids
— 3 5-loser hand or better, no voids
— 3 min with a void
— 3 rejects 4-card LR
— 3N-4 max with a void

1 - 2N - 3:
— 3 shows slam interest, asks for more info
—— 3 min with a singleton
—— 3 no shortness
—— 3N-4 max with a singleton
— 3 shows a min GF splinter (lower-tier of 2-tiered)
—— 3 asks, 3NT-4 show
— 3 shows mild slam interest opposite a singleton and a max
—— 3NT-4 show singletons and a max
— 3NT-4 show a singleton and extras (upper-tier)

1 - 2N - 3:
— 3 either GF no shortness or splinter with extras
—— opener can ask with 3 or show shortness with 3N-4
— 3 just a LR, no shortness
—— 3N-4 shows shortness
— 3N-4 shortness, 7 losers hand

1 - 2N - 3:
— 3 asks, 3N-4 show the void location

1 - 2N - 3:
— 3N-4 show shortness, slam interest opposite LR rejection

We almost never jump to 4M while partner is unlimited - we'd only do this with the worst hand we can imagine for slam. I also didn't define 4 bids when 3NT-4 show shortness - this step is free actually. You can use this for whatever you want - I think the best use is a hand that has extra values for previous bidding but no singletons. For an opener that's shown 6-7 losers, this might be something like AQJxxx AKx xx xx. You could make slam here opposite a control-heavy balanced minimum GF like Kxxx xx Axx AKxx.
Oct. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes
Oct. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, I suppose you might bid 4 with any GF that can't really visualize a slam, whereas some of those hands might bid 4 playing Standard. But that makes the ceiling of 4 higher, which if anything argues against stretching the floor?

I suspect you're right that thinking about bidding 5 might have been an overbid. 5 *could* be a down 1 save if partner has a singleton diamond but that does seem quite a bit against the odds.
Oct. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a reasonable approach IMO, but there are potential gains from bidding more slowly. If partner has two aces, grand is very good if partner has a heart (~80%) but should be avoided if he's void (50%). Sure he probably has a heart but he might not - on my auction I was pretty certain he didn't have one. Also, hearts doesn't have to be the right strain. If partner has solid spades and jumps to 3 over 2, then you want to play in spades not hearts since you can ruff the hearts good on any break. Give partner AKQJxxx - xxx xxx and 6 is almost cold but 6 is 50/50 on a club lead.

It seems like the gains from bidding Blackwood immediately happen if you can't get back to keycard in hearts at some point. This could conceivably have happened if partner bid 4 instead of 3NT in my auction.
Oct. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
-110 instead of +620 is lose 11 so if I'm committing to this not being our worst board then we're in a lot of trouble!
Oct. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, glad you're enjoying it. We didn't come up with the 3-suited stuff, I believe it's a normal part of the Transfer-Oriented Symmetric Relay stuff that we play. But it does make a lot of sense and we could replace it with opener starting natural bidding if we thought it was better.

WRT 1430, I pretty much agree there's no theoretical advantage, we mostly play that because we've been playing it forever and it's easier not to change things. I'm not sure there's really a disadvantage, though. The only theoretical point I can think of is that if you're bidding either 4 or 4 as keycard, you probably want to maximize the frequency of a 4NT response since it can't be doubled for the lead. I think that means making 4NT 1/4 keycards, but I'm not sure. We probably wouldn't make an agreement like that at this point since it's a bit prone to forgets. We just don't play enough to profit from advantages that are so rare/small, since if you forget it ever really you won't make up the difference.
Oct. 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you think these are the type of opponents who would take the dive in 6 over a direct 6, maybe it's right to do that. Normally, it seems unlikely to hurt by starting with 3 asking for a stopper. I can pull partner's response to 4 or 5 depending on how aggressive I'm feeling to show a massive hand too strong to overcall 4 directly.
Oct. 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 seems normal to me given the Q is probably waste paper. Not raising with East just seems bizarre.
Oct. 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the fact that the 7 was led matters a lot as well, though I didn't mention it specifically. I would lead the 2 if I had Jxx 1072 KJxxx Qx, since I don't want partner to lead the highest suit but I am ok with the two lower. I think you're essentially forced to give a binary signal initially since you don't know how many of your cards partner will get to see before making the critical decision. You're probably right about the 10 being more for diamonds.
Sept. 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North should just bid a natural, invitational 4N over 3.
Sept. 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was thinking about this last night - early diamond to the J loses if LHO has say KTxxx Qxx KTx Ax and RHO AJxxx xxxxx xx K, right? That seems consistent with the bidding and lead. I guess it depends on how likely you think it is that LHO leads a trump from AK tight.
Sept. 13, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top