Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Gill
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Still Jacoby and still game forcing
April 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South absolutely should have trusted his partner and bid 6 (or 6NT) since he held a heart control and his partner basically demanded he bid a slam with a heart control. However, if South held say xx AKQx KQJx KQJ wouldn't the same logic apply and get you to a slam off two aces? You don't know what partner has, so I don't see how you can not bid slam with this even though you only have one keycard for your 21-22 points (maybe he has AKQxxxxx xx xxx - for instance).

I feel strongly that North should have just bid keycard over 4 and forced slam if not off two aces to avoid this mess. Even if you're off an AK, they still have to lead it on a blind auction, and if they're regularly cashing aces or underleading kings into the balanced 21-22 point hand on this type of auction, you're going to make a lot of other slams you don't deserve to make up for it.
April 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even if you wouldn't do this normally (I'm not sure that I would), wouldn't you consider a preempt on this type of hand down 50 with 16 boards to go against a strong team? You never know how many reasonable opportunities you're going to get to stir the pot. Although to be honest I would pass 3NT with the above hand. I think you need to be really confident partner can't run your suit to make this kind of bid and here you have a possible side entry/stopper.
April 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I really don't understand everyone's visceral reaction to this auction (call me new-fashioned?). Partner has a very weak but offensive hand where he thought the highest EV action was to preempt in 1st seat, despite the colors. When you bid 3NT partner judged that you rated to get a better score in 4 than in 3NT - is he really supposed to just sit there and pass knowing that 3NT is very likely to be down multiple tricks red when 4 is making? You are way more likely to have a hand like this that's expecting to make a bunch of club tricks and stop the other suits than to have 3NT wrapped in your hand. I think it's totally reasonable to bid this way with, say, x x Qxx JTxxxxxx
April 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Setting aside the issue of whether or not this is strong enough to bid directly (I think it's close), it seems like this hand should make a responsive X, planning to correct 4 to 4 to show flexibility.
March 31, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've always liked this idea, though I've never seen it implemented. I think it's particularly good for fields like this where you can see the top N reasonably well based on past performance, but the existence of teams without a past history makes the seeding a bit dodgy for the rest. Another way to implement this is to seed the top N teams out of T, then let them choose in the intuitive fashion who DOES end up in their bracket. So #1 seed gets to pick their 1st round matchup, then #2… up to N. If N < T/2 then more picking will be necessary, but teams are always picking who will be filling their part of the bracket. What I like about this is it has more of an immediate revenge aspect - if you rate me as being the worst of the remaining teams, then I get to play you and try to prove you wrong! This is true to some degree with the above method as well; if I pick team X over team Y to put in the other half of the bracket, then team Y may get to play me down the line, but they may not if they lose first or if the other raters rate them differently and I get to throw them out with a later pick.
March 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am pretty much the worst amateur magician in the world. In fact the only thing I can do reliably is to shuffle a deck of cards casually while talking and keep a single card on the top or bottom of the deck. I make sure to always cut after shuffling because TBH it's easy for *anyone* (heck, probably easier for my LHO and RHO than for me) to have seen the bottom card while I'm shuffling and watch what pile it ends up in.

I suspect it's probably a big headache for directors, but given how competitive the round of 64 and 32 are becoming in these big national events and how much money is involved, I think it's worth it for the ACBL to provide separate boards for each match. I dunno about anyone else, but I would happily pay an extra few bucks to have hand records after a 60 board match to avoid saying “wait which of the 75 3NT contracts was this” afterwards.
March 22, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top