Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Wenble
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True. Based on a simulation I ran a couple of months ago, the figures are 1st seat:20%; 2nd seat 25%; 3rd seat 33%; 4th seat: 47%. The relative proportions (see Rosalind's comment below) also shift towards the higher end.
Jan. 20
Mike Wenble edited this comment Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Baron is by a long way the weakest of the conventional 3 responses to 2NT. It wrong-sides many contracts, and misses 5-3 fits.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Doug

as it happens, I've just been re-reading your Bridge World articles on transfer doubles. I think the use of a double as a constructive raise, with or without the addition of transfers, is an important theoretical advance. For instance, the standard use of a negative double by advancer after intervenor's overcall and responder's single raise to show values in the unbid suits and tolerance for partner's suit is in my view too infrequent to be of much value.

One element of interest that I'm considering at the moment is the best use of an unassuming cue-bid when that is also available, e.g. after (1) - 1 - (1), if X replaces 2 as a good heart raise, is there merit in treating 2 as natural?
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I disagree that the holders of the 19-count did anything stupid. There is no suitable bid in the defensive bidding lexicon for that hand, so they took the only sensible action and passed. Just as they (and you and I) would have done with a 2=6=3=2 19-point hand after a 1 opening by RHO.

Of course if you were to play a natural 2 overcall of a short 1 then you would have a bid available, but I prefer to retain 2 to show a two-suiter, with the intention of bidding clubs naturally on the next round if able to do so conveniently. I pay off if the auction continues P-P-P.
Dec. 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They hunt whales in Iceland
Dec. 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If ever there was a hand that supported the case for non-PH Drury, this is it.
Dec. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“ with a hand that they should have make a Texas transfer?” Should? SHOULD?? Now who's being judgmental?
Dec. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You lost to a team playing Nottingham Club??? That's not something I would ever admit in public.
Dec. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tough one.

I might have risked 5 over 5 - two diamonds losers seem moderately unlikely after 2NT and 4 (but that's easier to say when you can see partner's hand). Partner would sign off in 6 with, say KQx and Kx. As it is, he could try 5NT (GSF) and we will reach the grand.
Dec. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I have this hand and RHO has opened a 10-12 NT as dealer, we have a majority of the points 56% of the time. (20-20 is a further 12%).

Different if partner has already passed.
Dec. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with Steve. Until very recently, I would have passed over both 10-12 and 12-14. But a simulation I ran strongly suggests that passing with 13-14 over a mini-NT allows them to steal far too often.
Dec. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Per David B's comment, even if you know that your opponents are good enough to recognise a double squeeze when they see one, a statement such as “I claim the tricks on a double squeeze”, however macho that might make you sound, is inadequate.
Nov. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to double squeeze

(Not as good as Scott; nor, for that matter, as good as Burn's)
Nov. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nope, don't think so. I remember (or at least, I think I do) the stars we played against, and you and David weren't amongst them. (We played - and beat - Martin Hoffman in the final round; another sad loss to bridge this year)
Nov. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. Neither suit bothers me
Nov. 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not nearly aggressive enough. Better:
2 = 5 hearts + 4+ minor
2 = 5 spades + 4+ other
Nov. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Alfred Campoli trophy is played for annually at Thame Bridge Club.
Nov. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If ‘1 or 4’ is the most frequent response, as the poll currently suggests, then there is a case for changing the meaning of that response to ‘1, or 4 without’ and making one of the higher responses ‘2 without or 4 with’
Oct. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK, it's time to clear up the uncertainties I seem to have created.

First, I belatedly hasten to add that this wasn't my auction. I wasn't at the table. In fact, I wasn't even in the room. I came across the deal when scrutinising the club's results. I invented the auction to show a deal where the 0-3 response to key-card was ambiguous. But unfortunately it wasn't a great example as with two small clubs it's a hand for control-bidding, not asking. (The one pair who reached 6 bid 1 - 4 - 5 - 6, I learned afterwards, which is a much better auction in my view. Opener of course had the three-ace hand I postulated in OP).

2NT is not GF, but does promise 4-card support. The method works well, even when a shortness-showing bid by opener does not promise extras, since either hand can (attempt to) sign off in 3M. (I accept there's a case for opener's 3 rebid to show a minimum, but that's not how I choose to play it)

The raise of the shortness showing bid is an application of Splinterwood (see Bridge World July 2008). This too works well when used on a suitable hand.
Sept. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 is mandatory with a shortage; (but 1 - 2NT - 3 would show extra values)
Sept. 25, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
.

Bottom Home Top