Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Paul Block
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.
I'm not sure what's wrong with option 2. The spade suit looks an awful lot like a 4-card suit to me.
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I couldn’t invite I’d try 3nt. I don’t get “pass.” Yes, I saw the form of scoring.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It may be nothing, but I feel like a director call is in order just so the opponents can have it explained to them that this is not the correct way to inquire about the auction.
Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A week has passed. Let's hear the story.
Feb. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I know, vul at IMPs and all that, but vul at IMPS also means undertricks add up quickly. Even 2nt figures to be a challenge and 3nt might get smashed.
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's really close. What pushes me to 6 is that partner didn't try for 3nt as they might with spade wastage. Also, partner's 1 over 1 figures to be less pushy than it might be over a 1 opener. Additionally, since my 3 could be manufactured a bit partner must have decent clubs (at least good length).
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wish I could super-like Leo's comment (this one, not the one about not bidding the 1nt).

I hate the 1nt as natural here, but if partner and I have agreed it, I'm bidding it here. If I'm not going to bid it with this hand I shouldn't be playing it. Yes, we have no tricks. Yes, we have no shape. Yes, our intermediates are crap. But, if we're playing it, we're playing it because we think it's right to bid it when we have it. Bid it.

All that said - as Leo points out - we shouldn't be in this position.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You play obvious shift, correct? So the 2 just says, “I'd rather see spades continued than to see a diamond on the table.” Or do you not play obv shift in this partnership?
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do you really want partner to do something else with: QJx, Kxx, AKx, XXXX? I'm not saying bidding on is a good idea - I probably wouldn't, but hanging this entirely on partner doesn't seem right.
Oct. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems like 3nt could salvage it. 3nt may just convince East that their partner is truly broke. As for West they may decide that partner's bidding is more distributionally based. We may buy it, undoubled. If doubled, we may actually have a chance at 4c. By then everyone at the table should know what's going on.
Oct. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bravo! Congratulations to the team, the WBLers, and especially Melanie. Great work!!!
Oct. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I swear, I didn't look. …and I didn't play that week.
Sept. 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ah, yes. Brain cramp. Good point by you.
Feb. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So, if you KNOW that partner could NEVER have bid 5 over your transfer with a normal 1nt hand you have 2 possibilities:

1. Partner psyched.
2. Partner forgot that we are playing Texas.

Since option 2 is clearly “suggested” by the UI of the failure to alert you are forced to the determination that partner psyched. I can't see bidding 5 if partner has psyched the 1nt (maybe 6 but not 5)
Feb. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why do you think West is free to bid 5? Who would ever bid 5 if they KNEW that partner had taken 4 as a transfer?
Feb. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Clearly there was no damage since 6 can be easily made; therefore, no redress is necessary. However, the 5 bid is out of bounds. The OP does not specify the use of screens, so West was expecting to hear an alert of 4. Had s/he heard that alert they would clearly not have bid 5.

If partner had alerted, West would have had to work to figure out what 5 meant. It's hard to figure, but there are 2 distinct possibilities:

1. Partner psyched and has only a hand full of diamonds.
2. Partner has some sort of super-max in support of hearts and is bidding controls.

Whatever it is, bidding 5 is NOT in the picture. Again, I see no damage, but I don't get how everyone can be so sanguine about the 5 call. In my book, South could pass if they thought partner might be the type to psych or they could bid 5 to drive forward slam exploration.
Feb. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would expect 6-7 hcp flattish with spades stopped and perhaps a willingness to defend 2x. I like the concept of 1nt as leb, but I don't think it would occur to me at the table.
Jan. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had an auction a couple weeks back:

2 - (1) - 2 - (p); 3 - (p) - p - (p)

I was the (first) 2 bidder and my (very) non-expert pick-up partner chastised me as she was laying down the dummy, “Pre-emptor is not supposed to bid again!”

I made 3, scoring 9 of 11 matchpoints.

(edited for clarity)
Jan. 26, 2018
Paul Block edited this comment Jan. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rest of the story?
Jan. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you might find this helpful:
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/1m-2m-now-what/
Jan. 25, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
.

Bottom Home Top