Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Paul Hightower
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 52 53 54 55
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner isn't broke, we should have a play for at least 9 tricks, but this is stronger than I would expect for 3 in this position and not enough playing strength for 4. I'll open 1 and consider a game bid if partner shows signs of life.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At this point, 25 of 41 appear to prefer to have extra high card strength, or controls, or something for a strength-showing jump. I'm on the fence myself, I was mostly interested in whether this was a 3NT rebid.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've played weak, generally 4-4 in the majors; odds slightly favor finding a 4-4 fit when you have two of them, but landing in a 4-3 fir almost half the time is a bummer. I think I prefer old-fashioned invitational. BWS uses weak:

“(d) Stayman (possibly a weak hand; opener bids hearts with both majors), followed by responder's bid of: (i) two hearts is weak (scrambling for a two-level contract with length in both majors); (ii) two spades is invitational;”
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I generally avoid a negative double with a singleton in partner's suit. Here, however, I'm willing to correct partner's 3 reply to 4. This could be wrong but preempts do that to you.
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kx xx AKQxxxx xx is not a hand I would rebid 3NT on; you need a stopper and a fast trick from partner to make 3NT. David's corrected hand, xxx A AKQxxxx Qx, is questionable; you only need a stopper from partner, but in one of two suits he hasn't bid. I'm going to assume no competent player would underlead AK of clubs on the bidding. So it appears that your maximum is approximately my minimum. I'd be interested in a single-dummy simulation or a Bridge Browser type search; I doubt anyone has ever played enough hands to gain any reliable, empirical insight. In the meantime I will persist in the illusion that I am playing bridge.
Nov. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would you mind giving examples?
Nov. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard's example needs the clubs to come in or the A onside with no spade lead to make 6, so it looks like slam is a poor bet. 11 tricks are safe and perhaps opener should reject any invitation.
Nov. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Too late to edit – my example doesn't insure 6NT (or 6) since partner's rebid wrong-sides the contract. So perhaps inviting is too aggressive.
Nov. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
12 tricks if they don't find the spade lead :). 3NT is a favorite if responder has either black Ace, along with other possibilities, so I can't knock 3NT, and it is in fact quite close to the hand I visualized.
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. Too strong for a 15-17 notrump.
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What is a “presumed declarer” ?
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, some of us play transfer-then-3NT as a question: “Do you have three card support?” Others would look at opener's prime values and select 4, despite the flat shape. That might be worth simulating – assume responder is 5332 with 9+hcp opposite the above no-trump hand. If 4 is favored in the worst case (5332 opposite 4333) it will surely be favored if responder has a shapelier hand.

If you play transfer-then-3NT as “choice of games”, allowing opener to pass with 4333, you will often gain in the 5332/4333 cases, but almost force responder to bid 3 on this sort of hand, helping the opening leader and complicating slam investigations. An alternative is that responder might choose Stayman on 5332, settling for 3NT if no 9 card fit, but this risks playing 3NT with, say, 2533 opposite 2344.
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Majors Always First In Action”
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RIchard, what hand, at this scoring, would you expect partner to pass with, given that you might have this hand?
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would think double would be just as automatic on A J87 KQ52 A8643.
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can't pass, I think they are a favorite to make 2 doubled. 3 shows values, but partner will be less eager to raise a minor than a major.
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted “definitely would not” but Chuck's example is a reasonable exception: not worth 18 until partner shows 5+ hearts, then probably worth more than 18. I would make my usual 3 super-accept rather than devote a special bid to this sort of exception.
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem with that approach is that opener may misevaluate honors in the purported short suit. I would transfer then rebid 4 to request control bidding. IMO your example is too strong for the merely invitational transfer-then-3NT sequence. A clear advantage of your approach is leaving room for opener to control bid clubs.
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wouldn't rebid 3NT on K xx AKQxxxx Qxx, so i expect a better hand than that. A xx AKQ10xxx QJx makes 6NT a laydown, so inviting seems justified. The key question is whether 4 is a stronger bid than 4NT, or can we stop at 4NT after a control bid? I think I and any of my partners would interpret 4NT as key-card asking after a control bid, so I'll simply invite with 4NT now, even though I'm fairly certain partner needs a club control. If 1-1; 3NT-4; 4-4NT were clearly natural I'd vote for 4.
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it just amounts to guessing 3NT is a good bet. I would not expect a singleton or small doubleton in either black suit, but since neither opponent overcalled, K or Qx or xxx are at least conceivable.
Nov. 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 52 53 54 55
.

Bottom Home Top