Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nate Munger
1 2 3 4 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the less said about your partner's claims, the better.
April 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5 is a quick way to end a partnership.
Jan. 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a waste of time to worry about. If your world class opponent is going to vary their line depending on whether you play the Q or the J from QJ, they are betting that you would make the same honor play over 90% of the time apriori. World class players are very unlikely to make that bet.

And even if they are, you don't know which one is the magic card, so you might as well randomize.
Jan. 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To ignore restricted choice in this position requires you to believe that your opponent would play a particular card from QJ more than 91.6 repeating percent of the time. You are basically never going to have that kind of read.

This argument has been rehashed a million times before. The “good player” you spoke with who does not believe in restricted choice is simply wrong.
Jan. 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMO passing deserves see 2 more passes, with partner holding AK KQJx Axxx Jxx and you play in the 4-1 fit cold for slam.
Jan. 7, 2016
Nate Munger edited this comment Jan. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If they don't play penalty X over 3rd seat 1N, I would open 1N. Otherwise, I choose between the majors.
Jan. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was a different hand. I don't think that the hand you mention was an issue. The director was called because the initial explanations on both sides of the screen were different, but I don't think anybody is clamoring for an adjustment on that board.

Even if misinformation did affect the bidding, which it didn't, I don't think there should be any adjustment because 3 goes down on a spade shift followed by an underlead.
Jan. 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd have made the wager before posting the hands
Sept. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And North knows to bid 6 how? Partner can't have the same hand with the heart queen instead of the club queen? Or the heart KQ instead of the ace? I'm not so sure this is an “easy hand” as the title implied, but the auction you just gave is far from an easy path.
July 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand your point. 1NT is totally normal with those cards. Opening anything else is simply an error. If your partner takes a dim view of you making such bids, perhaps you should discuss this with them.
June 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You don't need to unblock the queen there. If you want to give up 2 tricks and establish the suit West just overtakes.
June 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If it was not worth acting a level lower, why am I acting now?

And yes, if partner tanked over 3 bidding is egregious.
June 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I lead my singleton club. This is a lead problem right?
June 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For the first question, yes.

For the second question, you have no relevant information as to unknown cards. Of course, information as to the count is totally irrelevant, as if the 10 is a singleton or from a 3 card holding, your play is immaterial. For anything to matter the player in front of the AQxxxx must have a doubleton.
May 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think you and David quite agree. You are engaging in (with all due respect) junk mathematics that coincidentally gives the right answer for one particular case. The idea that (assuming a 4-2 heart split) cashing a top heart changes the odds of Jxxx in West is total rubbish. The fact that you claim the odds switch back does not make the earlier statement true.

I wonder if you and David will agree on the odds involved in playing AQxxxx facing xxxx (missing the KJ10). You lead low towards the AQ and LHO follows with the 10. What are the relative odds of success for:
1. Playing the Ace
2. Playing the Queen
Do this taking into account that your (expert) LHO followed suit with the 10.
May 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When you hook the 10, you are laying 3-2 odds that the suit is 2-4. I don't think you have a reason to lay those odds, so I'd play for the drop.
May 27, 2015
Nate Munger edited this comment May 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think we agree that passing is right, so there's no reason for us to quarrel. I took exception to the description of 4NT as a safety play, but I think I misunderstood.
May 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You think partner has a strong 2 suiter including diamonds why? Partner bid a natural 3NT. Inviting slam on a 7 count will likely get you 2 high opposite the more normal big balanced hand. IMO bidding more is ridiculous and absurd.
May 25, 2015
Nate Munger edited this comment May 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bob,

Let me get this straight. You think 2-way should be off in this sequence not because you want to play 2 of a minor, but because you see no need for it and don't want to deprive yourself of a natural sequence.

You then go on to tell us that both major suit bids after 1-1-1NT are kinda artificial, and you would presumably be bidding 2 of a major followed by 3 on xx xx AKQxxx AQx.

I mean, if you think it's a good idea to play methods that have you bidding suits both naturally and on 2 small, that's your prerogative, but I would not describe such auctions as “natural sequences.”
May 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Those red cards are fours, not aces.
May 25, 2015
1 2 3 4 5
.

Bottom Home Top