Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Ma
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Declarer and/or his partner did themselves no credit by claiming that when W does not ruff , he would have waken up. I think inevitable discovery is just as stupid in Bridge as it is in law.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The claim was running the , so I think declarer should be allowed to run all the . However, declarer should not be allowed to keep the most advantageous cards on the board when all are “winners”. Nor should they be allowed to go to dummy in the most advantageous way. So after running all the , the play will be a . Down 2.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So 9 hearts to the AKQ (maybe just AK) is a legitimate 2 opening?
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ian, it is not a question of whether the hands that pass for strong make sense. Is anyone going to open 2 with your hand? The regulations are not intended to regulate good Bridge, it is to stop opening 2 with preemptive hand. Having an implicit emphasis on defense through points and/or controls serves that purpose.

No matter what the rule is, there will be hands that fall outside the crack. Obviously a 1 loser hand should be good enough for a 2 opening with the OP's hand. But what is the impetus to do that other than shutting out opponents? I think many would just open 6 on the hand. Or one 4NT and filling the miracle of 3 A in partner's hand, bid 6. I could not tell from the actual bidding how they figured out to bid 7 anyway.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Craig, I am not supporting opening 2 legitimately with either of your hands. For one thing, both have more losers than controls.

Opening 2 is terrible for constructive bidding, So, if you open 2 on a hand that needs lots of input from responder, you are not getting it. Do you really want to be in game opposite a K from responser in either of those hands? So if you open 2, you have committed all your eggs in one basket.

The power of 2 is not so much that it stops opponents from bidding, it is that they can't tell if they are bidding to interfere or in some cases they have game (not so rare if you can do it on preemptive hands). You are actually more likely to get a 2 overcall over 2 than 1, especially if they are NV.

Marty, I am not sure opening 2 with AKQxxxxxx and out should be allowed even if it does not lots of tricks.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I know it when I see it” So who is this “I”? I am sure there are those who will claim that this hand with KQ replaced by xx is “it”.

And taking this hand as an example, why is there an urgency to open a forcing bid. Is there any real danger that 1 will be passed out?

If one was playing Precision, opening 1 or not is about whether the hand is easier to bid with 1 or 1 (if not opening 6). However, opening 2 or not is about which bid is better to stop opponents from coming in.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why blame the regulations? The problem lies with people who intentionally open 2 with preemptive hands. If you make a bad 2 opening with e.g. Craig's hands, you are just cutting your own throat. The regulations are not there to make people play good Bridge.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jim, some people do have some understanding about what the Tx transfer narrows the hand to more than others, perhaps less restriction, perhaps more, when there is interference.
Dec. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1) So what is the agreement? I did not see it explained as + higher but may be shenanigan.

2) Risk free psyches are considered differently than other psyches. The question is if this case is similar to weak 1NT - 2M drop dead (psyche) and opener is never allowed to bid after opening 1NT.
Dec. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it is more than just advancer is in control, so she can do whatever she wants independent of what the system says. When 2 is announced as = higher, that affects opponents's bidding, not just whether they X or not. I don't see why one should not alert 2 and when asked, explains as nominally + higher, but may be joking (or however one says that).

By the same token, if one routinely psyches 1NT - 3NT, then that should be alerted too.

Now, if someone says that this is just Bridge in expert circle, I have nothing to say about that.
Dec. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, they may have . Wiht your length, it makes it more likely it is just a 0 NT opening.
Dec. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why do you are about stoppers when they have opened a weak NT (Precision 1)?
Dec. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ACBL CC actually has an entry for whether this bid (assuming natural) is forcing or not.
Dec. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, it should not go back to N. S has already denied 4 , and knows they have clear BOP due to the XX. Plus, terrible hand for offense. X is the stand out bid then. I think passing the X by N is clear too with 3 1/2 defensive tricks, counting on S for a trick. A side K with S would do the job. And even if S's K is in as here, you can hope for an useful Q. The power of MP.
Dec. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I said was a possible (simple) path in my comment above. I hope you thanked your opponents for playing support X.
Dec. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why should W be enthusiastic over the mixed raise bid? Move one of E's to , far more likely than the actual hand, and 4 does not even make.
Dec. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play Snapdragon X of 1 to promise 5 and 2+ . Partner will “raise” with 3. That post was about X of 1.
Dec. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or if E goes low with just a 2 raise, then W bids 2 over S's support X (and thank NS for doing that rather than bidding 2NT/3). Easy 4 bid by E.
Dec. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After 1, if opponents will be silent from then, 2 (invitational for ) - 3 - 4.

Of course , there is little chance they will stay silent. Probably there would be a support X of 2. But neither that nor some bid interfere with the 3 bid.

Those W who bids 2NT over 1 have an easy time.
Dec. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 5 asks for control, at least advancer knows what to do, even if that hand happens rarely. If it is a generic ST, what does she have to have to bid 6? Is she supposed to know for the Soloway hand that the two M Q (one useful and one maybe useful) offers a decent slam?
Dec. 1
.

Bottom Home Top