Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ned Kohler
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 30 31 32 33
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At least 5. Denied 4, denied 4, denied 7, denied 6 unless poor suit. So something like Dennis’s construction is plausible but possibly

x AQJ Qxxxxx QJx

although l would personally have rebid 2.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Better yet 5 NON-deceptive Exclusion. Wife and I had this exact situation (except in ) some years ago. I trusted her not to make an unnecessary bid using up precious space. We got the grand for a match winning swing. No reason to exclude partner’s opening minor from Exclusion consideration when obvious.
Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kieran, particularly when they don’t specify the caliber of the gun. Anything less than a .357 magnum is inconsistent with the bidding.
Dec. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What did the X mean?
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The other side doesn't count. But I agree 5 at least deserves a dishonorable mention.
Oct. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not many actions as egregious as not X'ing 5 combined with perfectly normal bidding on the other side.
Oct. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Guessing what Partner means combined with hoping he will guess what you meant on top of an initial misdescription is not conducive to a delicate slam investigation.
Sept. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn’t this a lead problem?
Sept. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
LR playing Flip-Flop.
Sept. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I make an irresponsible X. Like responsive but of partner's bid.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With a couple of partners I bid 1-2. Exactly 4 , 3, no 5 bagger and too strong to jump to 4 at any point to show the fit.
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Defective bidding box. The 4 1/2 bid is sticking again.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since when is 3 or 3 not a GF?
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This pass is either business or running with 4333, in which case responder will bid 2.
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a situation where I have nothing to say so I say it loudly and clearly.
Sept. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In a Walsh context using XYZ, I play that 2 shows GF, while 1 is a one round force denying 4 and usually without a stop. That handles the awkward 2N rebid without a stopper problem as well as the 3N rebid without a stop which what you have here.

Since we in a game force as the problem is set, I will only bid 2N. 3N would show 15-17 for me. Partner is not restricted to only having a half stop and may be probing for slam.
Aug. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner doesn't have , West has and .
Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wouldn't either but it is not a major deviation.
Aug. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Misread notes
Aug. 19
Ned Kohler edited this comment Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
QJxx = 2N. QJx = 1N.
Aug. 17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 30 31 32 33
.

Bottom Home Top