Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Paul Hightower
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 47 48 49 50
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 does not seem to promise values, any more than 2 did, especially with the agreement that 2 is forcing. 31H as a general game force looks right.
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't want to defend against 4 if partner has a minimum, but I expect to beat 5, so I'll overbid to 4 and make them guess.
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thinking in terms of “game try”, I quickly ruled out 4. That left pass, double and 3NT. But we probably do not have two spade tricks and odds don't seem to favor beating 3. 3NT also looks like a poor bet, so I passed. But after reading MCz's comment, I switched to 4 after all – it rates to come within one trick of making and score better than -140.
Sept. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes I understand that four card overcalls and advances have a cost in terms of our own bidding. But doubling here seems quite dangerous – they have not found a fit. Partner may well have spades and no red suit. This was considerably less likely at our first turn to bid. I would rebid NT over a spade advance. Yeah, opener might rattle off a bunch of club tricks, if his partner leads them.
Sept. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Double is a “call” for purposes of the bridge laws; it can be labeled an “intervention” for discussions of competitive strategy and methods.
Sept. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your opinion carries a lot more weight than mine, but let me ask: is it clearly safer to double now than to overcall 1 earlier, if partner is aware that could be four and can freely advance a four-card heart suit?
Sept. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Phil, as I read it: Not allowed under either Basic chart, which specify what IS allowed. Allowed under either Open chart, where nothing prohibits them.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If this is watchpoints, I already overcalled with that hand. If this is IMPs, I pass again.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Transfers over interference” then.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. I expect the bidding may well come back to me at 4, so I want to get the hearts in now. I plan to bid diamonds next, rebidding them if necessary to emphasize they are for real. If partner bids spades (or clubs) he should NOT assume a diamond bid promises support, though many have that misimpression so I might have to guess what to do and discuss things later.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good clubs, strong hand, short spades.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted pass, but I would likely have bid 2 followed now by 4, unless 2 shows something like 10+.
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jumping to show 13-14 balanced seems about right.
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Adding a comment like “(not what you meant to bid!)” would have made the problem clear; as is, I abstained expecting some explanation about how the poster mixed up the problem and would re-post.
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are of course correct that on this particular sequence, partner must either have three diamonds or chose 2NT rather than 3 on specifically 3226. So do we have a different rule for this case as compared to 1-1NT; 2-2NT; 3?
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bridge World Standard isn't much help: “…treat as forcing or nonforcing by which seems more sensible to the observer.” I would want a meta agreement about bids after an invitational 2NT by a hand not narrowly limited in strength, and would favor forcing. To bid 3 as a minimum with no assurance of a fit anywhere does not strike me as sensible, so I voted 3, but absent any discussion I would raise to 3NT rather than risk missing game.
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the sequence 1-1; 2NT-?, a common agreement is that all bids are forcing. An alternative is to play something artificial, such as Wolff or transfers. The given sequence, and many others, seems similar to me: an invitational 2NT opposite a hand not tightly limited in strength. Absent any artificial methods, I would want to play 3 forcing here, passing if necessary on a very minimum 5-5 hand.
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With no significant extra high cards, playing strength or shape, no reason to bid again.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4 is an underbid, but over here anyway 5 simply asks about control of diamonds. Seems like we also need extra values, and the five level is not safe. 4 does not offer a clear path and is apt to fetch 4 from a partner who is 4-3 in the majors. So I'll settle for the vulnerable game after all.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was guessing that you had some method of asking for club keycards. An important lesson from this hand should be that asking about key cards is not the same as setting that suit as trumps – a player with a solid suit has no need to ask about that suit!
Sept. 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 47 48 49 50
.

Bottom Home Top