Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Ma
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nigel, thanks for the clarification. Of course opener should take into account that responder may not have 4 spades. At the same time, as you and others said, responder's lower limit is higher than a simple 1 bid, esp. if not at least 4-4 in the M. Opener's bid of course takes all those factors into account. None of those has direct effect on whether opener's 3 is invitational or GF as far as I can see, only what is good enough for invitation and what for GF.
Dec. 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why would W expect ruffing from dummy since he know dummy has only two trumps at most. The only explanation for leading trumps is W knows their side has everything outside . In which case, W may have just xxxx in .
Dec. 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner should have something for the 3 bid (I am not proud of my actual hand). Given your singleton A, if partner has trick or trick, there should be no problem getting it/them. It is difficult to see how can go away if the Michael's bidder is not void while yu still have the A. But trick can go away, so as you said, a lead is pretty automatic against 6 if all one wants to do it set it.

Against 5, my partner was of course thinking he would lead the A, get to my hand by underfeeding his and get a ruff. The problem is since he knows we have 11+ 's, the chance of void is high (100% if we have 12). And if I can give him a ruff, it may be a natural winner (I have e.g Qxxx). The is the suit that cannot wait.
Dec. 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BTW, I think in 3rd seat, 10 - 12 should become 10 - 13 or even 10 - 14 (depending on what restrictions on response to 5 point spread NT there are).
Dec. 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also play 10 - 12 1NT Precision in certain vulnerability situation. I seriously don;t recall when it gains last. I do recall putting down 17 point dummy and 3NT going down due to “wrong-siding”. In at least one case, the 1NT stopped a overcall by opener's LHO, and that person led from his 5 card suit, and that was the killing lead.
Dec. 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, your comment is a bit self-inconsistent. If you are worried about missing 16 vs. 8 3NT, then why are you down on opening balanced 16 Precision 1?

I think if one plays 10 - 12 1N, so then 1 can be balanced 16, it is simplest to play positive response as 9+ if balanced.

Having played 10 - 12 when the vulnerability is right with one partner for quite awhile now, I can't seriously recall the last time it really gains. I do remember a couple of times where I put down a 17 point dummy for 3NT, and we went down.
Dec. 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If Kit's carding method applies here , it would be gold. A/K lead (whichever is not the power lead), 4 on trick 1 suit preference for . Small to K, J (or is 8 better?). Hopefully, EW can work out the and situation from this point on.
Dec. 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You don't need 4 tricks from partner. You just need to get to his hand to lead a through after he plays the J on trick 1. The question is how (see next comment).
Dec. 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hamish, no argument there. As I have written before, I wish everyone is just honest about their motivation for making a certain bid, rather than the defensive “it is just bridge”.
Dec. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see the same old tired chestnut. It is not about evaluation. It is about people e.g. wanting to preempt opponents but claim it is evaluation and upgrading.
Dec. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, even playing ground does not mean removing randomness, it means removing arbitrainess depending on who happens to be the director/appeal committee.
Dec. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Forbidding forcing pass dumbs down the game, but so is forbidding X of P.
Dec. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom, I showed the hands, and 5 was bid to make, but so was 5. 5 was unbeatable. 5 required a lead to beat it, which my partner did not find at the table (no shame on that). If we cannot set 5, we should bid 6.
Dec. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Invitational is NF by definition.
Dec. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nigel, I am sure it is my problem with reading comprehension, but I can't understand what you are trying to say.
Dec. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Aviv, it matters not what the lower limit of the neg X is. If opener has game opposite lower limit, he will bid game or QB. If he needs more but not much more, he will invite.
Dec. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is 1 - (P) - 1 - (P)
3
forcing? if not, then why is is forcing here?
Dec. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit, I agree 100%. I was just saying that the person making the Q should know that partner can sometimes be under the gun.
Dec. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is silly. Even playing ground means winning by abilities, not by preferential director's ruling because of favoritism or prestige.
Dec. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One man's just playing bridge is another's uneven playing ground.
Dec. 29, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top