Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Niels Foged
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You may not feel that much more comfortable being in 3NT?

This board was played at 14 tables in Denmark's strongest club.
At 5 of them, Declarer was in 3NT:
North went down 3 of 4 times (9 tricks after a lead, 8 after a -lead, and 7-8 after a lead)
South went down once after a lead.

…and by the way: improve your declarer play by bidding suboptimally is my unofficial “Bols tip” :)
Jan. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hey Dennis

I will try to phrase the following as a question, but actually it is mainly to emphasize the great job you and your father, Morten, do for Danish junior and school bridge:

How short time did you and Morten have to recover from the cross-atlantic travel before starting the first match of the 2013 Vanderbilt (after your win now named the VanderBilde) tournament?

Since most BWs will not know the background for this question, I will add, that you and Morten completed a highly appreciated weekend course in Copenhagen for 50 or so junior beginners including my son, before rushing to the airport to catch the plane to play in US. This makes the accomplishment of winning as a team-of-4 even greater.

PS: Now that you are living in Norway, I recommend taking your snowboarding to a literally higher level: Go to the World's Mecca of snow-kiting in Haugastöl/Hardangarvidda - here is a little inspiration: https://vimeo.com/210742384

Have fun!
Dec. 19, 2017
Niels Foged edited this comment Dec. 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just a remark reflecting on the different (or suspicious) bidding styles “back then”(19??) vs today:
I would have liked to also see a Bridgewinners' poll of the 2nd round bid of West's opening hand of the last deal on page 2 above:
White vs Red / 1-(Pass)-1-(1), ?
Despite this very minimal interference from NS (holding 22 hcps!), West “cleverly” passed even though opponent's hearts were a mere Q97 to T (and partner's next bid was 2)!
Though I don't know West's actual hand (Avon?), I would be very surprised, if more than 10% of today's BW-voters would have chosen to Pass that hand in 2nd round!
PS: 3rd round, West confirmed his foresight and made a simple, unambitious 2 preference after his partner (probably holding 7 hcps at most?) reopened 2.
Dec. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for all votes and comments
In my opinion Declarer chose the best plan (#2 above) by taking A, to K (probably checking for T from East), but actually seeing 2 (East) and 8 (West), then 5-T-A-4, and A-J-9-2, but when continuing towards K, East trumped and also took a and a trick for 1 down.
East had KQJ854 Q42 K63 J!
So actually Choice #1 and #3 were winning plans.
/Niels
Nov. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is true: 2-6 and ruff in front with T makes the discard an automatical loser-on-loser, thanks Kieran :)
That further reduces the margin of the safety play!
/Niels
Oct. 26, 2017
Niels Foged edited this comment Oct. 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From an unofficial communication with the Chairman of the Danish Appeal Committee, Jens Brix Christiansen, I have now learned about the specific Danish rules for cases like this:

“The general rule not to alert Dbl, which is in force when playing without screens, is not valid when playing with screens”.

“When playing with screens, any Dbl which expresses a wish to play the doubled contract or shows strength in that suit should not be alerted, and also ”REGULAR“ 1st round takeout doubles should not be alerted. All other doubles must be alerted, when playing with screens.”

Thus, my partner's penalty double of 2 should definitely not be alerted, whereas it should have been alerted, if it was for take-out! Even though the Dbl was a first round bid, it was not a REGULAR(!) take-out Dbl, but more like a negative Dbl, which must be alerted!

Jens emphasized, that when the Dbl was not alerted, it should be interpreted by West as natural (=penalty).

Jens also stated, that I was allowed, but not at all obliged to tell my screenmate (West) - on my own initiative - that the Dbl of 2 was penalty. He also made it clear that there would be no adverse consequences for NS, if I had decided not to tell, even if that would cause EW to go overboard (most likely 4 Dbl for a 4-cifre negative score).

According to Jens (I haven't checked), these Danish rules are similar to rules used by the EBL and WBF, but not necessarily completely identical to these rules and may deviate substantially from other national rules.

/Niels
Oct. 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry I didn't specify it in the the original OP, but as mentioned in my comments, the 3 was of course alerted immediately by West when the tray came back to us (S and W) - he believed it to be a fitbid and alerted. Still, I should probably not have asked, since Pass would be the preferable bid no matter what 3 meant, and even though my Pass would be forcing according to agreements. However, I didn't think much about it, and simply asked as soon as the 3 bid was alerted.
Asking about the meaning of an alerted bid obviously should not be interpreted as showing own length in that suit! However, my subsequent (stupid?) penalty Dbl of 3 probably gave him that impression :)
/Niels
Oct. 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Michael and Bernard
Both arguments are true. I knew that East would have 0-1 to 1 spade (i.e., no fitbid), unless West had bluffed, which was extremely unlikely. Certainly, I was 100% sure that partner's Dbl was penalty.
/Niels
Oct. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dear Michael and Steve
I hope - but don't know if - you are right, and I agree that alerting any “surprising” Dbl behind screens seems a good exception to the general rule of never alerting Dbl. All the above mess would have been avoided, if I had immediately alerted partner' Dbl of 2 when the tray returened, but I actually believe(d) it to be against the rules.
/Niels
Oct. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Nicholas
No I was not blamed by partner or team mates except for asking about the (alerted) 3. As supported by the replies to this poll, I should have realized that my hand was only worth a (forcing!) Pass no matter what the meaning of the 3 was, and thereby I should simply have left to West and North to decide the further bidding.
/Niels
Oct. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In Denmark, we are not allowed to alert any doubles (without exceptions, though pre-alerting for example transfer doubles is expected from pairs playing such agreement). It is my impression that this rule is considered very important by TD's in tournaments played without screens, whereas I probably could have alerted North's double without adverse consequences, since we used screens - but I didn't.
/Niels
Oct. 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Again, I agree with you, Martin - passing 3 would have been better.
However, please notice that my pass of 3 in principle would have been forcing, when opponents were running. Maybe not the best agreement, but helping us to avoid unpleasant situations, where the (lack of) speed when passing in 2nd position may be indicative to 4th hand's decision of also passing (even when using screens).
Niels
Oct. 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Martin
I completely agree with your “baffle” - I shouldn't have asked even though 3 obviously was alerted (fitbid)!
However, I didn't realize it at the time, and asked immediately before even considering how to use West's explanation.
Penalty doubling a part score contract in a team match is a serious decision, and I admit my question was an unnecessary action aimed at helping me to decide, whether to double or not: the vulnerability, partner's Dbl, and the lacking 1st hand preempt from East supported that choice, whereas holding just 3 (poor) diamonds and a minimum (12 hcps) made me in doubt.
Probably, West's reply to the question together with my decision to voluntarily explain the meaning of North's Dbl to West should have convinced me to Pass 3, now that I was not smart enough to avoid asking about 3.
/Niels
Oct. 14, 2017
Niels Foged edited this comment Oct. 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was South, and told West that North's Dbl was penalty, before I doubled 3 for penalty, passed out. This was no success.
I lead A and continued with a small ducked on Table by Declarer, who subsequently scored 9 tricks (-670).
This was a very costly board for my team:
At the other table my team mates defended 3NT by South (-300).
The results of the other 5 matches playing the same board were:
3x 2 Dbl (+500/+800)
2x 2 (+200/+300)
1x 4 (+100)
1x 3NT (-300)
3x 5 Dbl (-500)

/Niels
Oct. 14, 2017
Niels Foged edited this comment Oct. 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On p.4/11 “a diamond lead… …clearly too risky”. Risky for sure, but “too risky”? - I don't think so.

I admit that for the actual board my choice of leading 6 mainly is based on the other three suits being equally doubtful (with being the only alternative).

In general a small trump from Qx often works fine, when declarer has a 6-card suit and at least opening strength, particularly if partner has Ax or Jx, where it may secure an extra trick. Also, it does not cost if partner holds Kx. Finally, it probably does not cost, if partner has A, K or J third. The worst case seems to be if partner holds xxx, which obviously is a relevant risk.

/Niels
Oct. 2, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Kit
Knowing your skill level and assuming to understand your position, I think your vote rather than “Other” belongs to:
“International Level: Always stick to my claim of 3 tricks”
Do you agree?

I have now added this to the poll text: “The TD is called, gets the details and tells he will return later with a ruling.”

My intention with this poll was to clarify, if Declarer would always stick to his claim of 3 tricks, or would subsequently ask TD to divide the remaining tricks 2-1, since the “hopeless” lay of cards would never(?) make 3 tricks possible.

/Niels
July 31, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I accept your opinion and maybe even share it (haven't decided yet - and hope to be assisted by the poll).
What comforts me (a bit), is that rather often when using normal Italian cuebids, it will be to show a control of an unguarded K in the suit bid. It is in those cases a lead-directing double becomes really unpleasant. Probably, by bidding the suit below the one of the unguarded K, the risk is reduced.
July 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My excuses to the first 12 voters and other early viewers of this poll - as mentioned by Michael and Rosalind, I mixed up “Lightner” and “Lead-directing” doubles in the original text, which may have caused a little confusion. I have now edited the text slightly, and expect it will not affect the poll.
Sorry for the inconvenience
Niels
July 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would open 1D, because I expect my LHO to have a reasonable consideration of bidding 3NT (or 4S) 1st round after my opening, and I want to (hopefully!) have the right lead, no matter whether my pd doubles or not.
April 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations ACBL - I love this day
In times of +10 for partscores in Trump, it is comforting that you still have the guts to enter this Major contract: A wall towards neighbours, which is merely oscillating rather than permanent, is a wonderful idea.
See you (don't see you - see you - don't see you…)
April 1, 2017
Niels Foged edited this comment April 1, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top