Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Paul Dalley
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it depends on the style of the 2D overcall.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ive changed my answer to pass, but I think its pretty difficult to calculate these sort of BAM decisions.


The main issue with doubling is - we are assuming our team mates are getting a negative score. If our team mates are getting a positive score, doubling is only a bad move for us.

edit: I shouldn't say we are “assuming” our team mates are getting a negative score, maybe ‘catering for’ is more appropriate.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
west is being strikingly inconsistent. He is saying that his bid is 2 places to play, but then forcing a heart contract. He obviously has changed his mind and something has compelled him to do the weird bid of 5H.

Also why not 5D? - if 4NT was consistent with 2 places to play, 5D is an adequate bid showing both reds. The obvious answer is that the UI has told West that in fact East's best minor is clubs. So bidding 5D is a waste of time, he is just trying to improve the contract by bidding 5H.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yea what you're saying definitely has its merits. I'm just not sure if worrying about diamond texture should come into it at that stage, because in several other ways 1NT does a lot of good for your side.

Also partner could have a whole range of diamond holdings, your Kxxx might be pretty good opposite say J10x, Qxx, Ax or whatever.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this isn't a case of just working out “what is the probability of a (443)2”. Because, divide the chance of a 4432 by 6, to get a (443)QJ.

However, being fairly sure that east doesn't have 5 diamonds probably makes a big difference, as basically the main or only shape with singleton club, consistent with the bidding, would be 4441. I'm not sure what occurs more 4441 with a singleton club honour, or (443)QJ. I wouldn't be surprised if (444)1 was less frequent.

Also I guess its important to gauge your opponent. If you know them to have agro or trickster tendencies, inferences from their bidding become much weaker obviously.

If you ignore the bidding, you would just do the normal thing of taking the finesse, which might just be a good idea to do against lots of opponents, perhaps especially against some of the youth players.


I would bid 1NT.
Dec. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the 8 is clearly correct but even if it wasn't, it is often too impractical and exhausting to figure out obscure carding exceptions and will probably be at the cost of some tempo which is a big concession.

Lately, when the correct card to play (due to signal considerations) is not clear, I have been prioritising tempo over accuracy, and actually think something along those lines is a good partnership style agreement. Playing in tempo (instead of thinking about signals) often makes it harder for declarer to read the situation, and also can reduce UI issues which can be significant.

Of course playing in tempo generally is good, but playing in tempo at the cost of not thinking about the hand is probably going to be more expensive on average than playing in tempo at the cost of not overly-thinking about a signal. The two can be closely related though (working out the hand, and therefore signalling a certain way).
Dec. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Okay. Its probably far fetched to draw too much out of tempo on such a hand, also because the guys at your table are conscious of tempo and will not give away too much.

I guess my point is that if it was in simple tempo, LHO might be more likely to be balanced, so some sort of 4432 (given the likely doubleton heart), and also therefore might be more likely to be 11+ points (unless they are opening all 10's balanced?). Ill'd expect one of the 4 card suits to be diamonds, and 4-3 in the blacks. If that all is correct, blacks are breaking 4-2 and 3-3, not sure which is breaking which way though, yet.

I think for most hands the clues are usually there to make the hand double dummy from an early stage, often from a VERY early stage. I find it useful to know that, because sometimes I go looking, but in practice I'm happy if I can get it right 1% of the time.
Nov. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What was the tempo of the opening lead?

Basic plan is to set up 1+ trick in clubs (or possibly diamonds if they play them), and then take an informed view on spades (if necessary, might have 5 tricks outside of spades and not need a 3rd in spades).

The only thing I'm NOT doing is taking a spade finesse in a hurry, there's no reason to and there's several reasons not to. First reason is that in the end game we'll probably have a strong idea where the spade Q is. Secondly, creating a loser early is not a good idea, because we might get home without 3 spade tricks, for example 2 spade, 2 hearts, and 3 tricks in the minors, while having 6 losers outside of spades. In other words, playing a spade early is very wrong in my opinion, however maybe there are advantages to it that I am not seeing in my superficial analysis.

I'm probably ducking the first heart, winning the next or enjoying a minor suit switch. When I get in say trick 2 with the heart K, I'm playing to set up 1+ club trick by leading club J because it looks most normal, but maybe there is a more technical way to tackle that suit.
Nov. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5 redoubled is 800, 5 undoubled is 400. Both easily possible outcomes.

5 doubled 2 off is 300, 5 undoubled 2 off is 100.

I'm not anxious about rolling the dice here, let them have it. Partner is bidding a lot of the time over 3C with a decent playable hand. I guess they might be passing with some 12-15 or so balanced boring hands, in which case well done to the opponents. I'm not worried about saying well done to the opponents though, and anyway, a plus score might be at least okay.

What is the correct answer? that is a total guess obviously.
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So is a reasonable guess for partner's hand 2-3 spades, 4ish hearts, unbalanced, longest suit is clubs, probably not 2425 or else maybe would've opened 1NT?

Is this a candidate hand?

AK
QJxx
x
KQJxxx

If so I think I would like to raise in clubs, maybe 2H if that shows a good raise to 3C.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yea, I meant in 3rd.
Nov. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
would you have passed as east on the first bid?
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have opened 1S as east without much thought, pass would not have occurred to me.
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit, if you had that auction 1NT 4H, knowing it was natural, with a partner that also knows it was natural (as you play no conventions at all, and have been doing that for a week with the same partner), and partner bid 4S over 4H, what would you bid with xx KQ10xxx Q10xx x ?

I would pass, having no real idea whats going on. I wouldn't bid 5H. I think even in these very extreme examples, if partner said “alert…” we are affected by it.

In other words, I think pass is a logical bid in an auction that we don't have a clue about, PROVIDED we don't think partner has misunderstood our bid. I think it is the UI that makes us know that partner has misunderstood our bid, not the strange bid of 4S over 4H.
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry for the flurry of messages, but where in the rules does it say that a player is allowed to figure out that their bid was incorrect in light of their partner's subsequent bid? (Australian rules, using the 2017 WBF rules). As far as I can tell the rules are only prohibitive, saying that a call that may be influenced by UI can not be selected over a logical alternative. I have been unable to find anywhere where this is overridden by (or moderated by) what people seem to be talking about a lot - being able to figure out on your own that your call was a mistake, because your partner's bid is otherwise “impossible”.
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think that is the intended effect of the wording. I think “using the methods of the partnership” is not particularly relevant in this context, but would be more relevant, for example, in a different context where the further choice of bid was affected, because the methods of the partnership dictated what the further bids meant.

Its virtually certain that the wording “methods of the partnership” does not create a loophole that allows players to consider UI when they have forgotten methods of their partnership.
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
By the way, a “A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select”

Pass is a serious consideration in this auction. The fact that the auction is illogical or impossible, does not mean pass is no longer a serious consideration, if anything it is more of a serious consideration. (Bidding on when it is unclear what is going on, and when the contract is not yet doubled, is not a very attractive idea).
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Its good for us to do the best we can, and all of us do unethical things all the time, even when we do our best, so there is no point being too afraid of it. Nevertheless, bidding over 4H is unethical, however if you prefer calling it another word that is less intimidating, that's also fine.

But if you really believe 4H is an impossible spot then you are basically saying that your partner has never done something offbeat or psychic nor have they mis-sorted their hand.

I've seen a similar auction in rubber bridge to what Peter Gill was referring to, and it was written up in the Australian by Paul Marston about 1 year ago. William Zhang was playing with David Conway and the bidding went, uninterrupted.

1NT 2C; 2D 3C - which in rubber bridge is to play and could be very weak, and their side had a 40 part score, so bidding on was “impossible”. David Conway then bid 6C, having mis-sorted his 0445 (and being the type of player to hate missing a slam).
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hey Phil, that is an interesting agreement (for people that insist on playing lots of system, and require further system for when system backfires) but of course the issue still is that you may be bidding due to UI.

The agreement is basically, “if I say alert, and you think Oh f!@#, just bid 4NT which we will agree is to play”. “Oh and by the way, if I bid on after 4NT, it means I have forgotten the back up plan”.
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe there is a very good chance, so behind screens IF you do work it out, you probably can act accordingly, however you might not work it out.

However you might not work it out, and without screens you cannot assume that you would have worked it out, and pretend the fact that you now know it has nothing to do with the fact that your partner said “ALERT…”. Basically, once partner has said “alert…” you should remain 100% asleep, unless there is authorised information that is 100% unequivocal that would wake you up, this is not 100% unequivocal, in fact I've seen that auction before with natural methods.

It seems people can't help but to make these bias arguments when they are in the moment.
Oct. 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.

Bottom Home Top