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 don't recall the author - Dorothy Truscott, perhaps - but I remember in the introduction of some bridge tome was the caveat when you read “never” please understand this is intended as “almost never” and where you see “always” this is meant as “almost always.”
Oct. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I chose not to provide this information in the OP because I didn't think it was relevant. It didn't occur to me that it would cause significant abstentions. 1 systemically is a limited and possibly quite light opener - 8-16hcp 5+ hearts. I would have needed about a king more than normal for a negative double last round. Since I wouldn't have made a negative double in a normal 2/1 context it was not on the radar here. I appreciate the comments. Maybe I'll post this again down the road to see who thinks its worth a negative double opposite a 2/1 opener.
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Qxx, AKxxx, Qxx, xx

3 will often make, and partner has no bid. Partner could easily have this hand or better.
Oct. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like 3, but not man enough to bid it.
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner still gets a vote, and they're also likely to be short in hearts. If they can't act, I feel like defending 4 will be our best spot more times than not.
Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An unfortunate side-effect of the organizer's desire to have people play in two-session chunks is that the evening side games (at least the one that I attended) are pitiful. The Reston Tuesday evening side game field was the worst field in which I can remember playing. Opponents had no idea what their bids meant and forcing bids were freely passed (which, of course just happened to be correct). In the future, I certainly won't be fighting traffic to get to a regional for a side game.
July 16
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
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
.

Bottom Home Top