Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Paul Hightower
1 2 3 4 ... 16 17 18 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Looks like a crossruff to me. Partner likely has some values but did not act, so is not short in diamonds – therefore declarer likely has a singleton. Dummy will be short in hearts or clubs or both.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is this South's hand and did West actually open 2 or something? Or is this West's hand and it was East that raised to 4 ? I guess that's most likely. South appears to be leading from an honor, or possibly a singleton. Anyway, I think I'll spread my hand, keeping partner's concealed.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many playing 4NT variants such as RKCB or 1430 prefer DFPS: Double First (step) Pass Second. Incredibly, however, many of those call their agreement DOPI, and assume partner will interpret double as “1 or 4” rather than the zero clearly specified by the acronym. I think it's a huge mistake to play anything but straight Blackwood without clarifying that DOPI means “double zero pass one” or agreeing to play DFPS.

Dorothy Truscott's original invention was what we now call DEPO, Double Even, Pass Odd; this preserved the option to penalize in all cases, but the modern tendency is to only play this when higher steps (showing 2 or 3 Aces or 2 Keys without or with the Queen) would require a 6 level bid.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a rare, genuine penalty double – in the direct seat, where we can lead a diamond. Of course, the popular misdefinition of penalty as being so many high card points means partner will usually pull. In the balancing seat, the spade tenace is badly placed, and partner will not know to lead a diamond, so to double seems quite dangerous. I strongly prefer double to mean something else, almost anything else, so we cannot double on such hands.

While bidding on 5332 is almost always wrong in the direct seat, a natural 2 here could have merit, driving them out of a 1NT we are badly placed to defend and getting partner off to the proper lead when they scramble out to a major. But Cappalletti usually means you won't get a chance to bid your suit. I heartily dislike the convention.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm wondering what to punt with the next time I get in, but seeing dummy will help.

So, any hand record? What lead would've worked?
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I gathered as much from other discussion here, but unless partner's overcalling style is quite heavy, I'm content with having made a stab at slam with 4. I would pass the 4 signoff.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Then I think 4 was the best move on the previous round.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Opening a second tab was the obvious move, but as I said, it seems to lock up. I just now tried the copy and paste suggestion – which avoids having to navigate to the same thread – and after some delay that worked, and I was able to resize both windows to place them side-by-side. Still something of a chore, compared to the ease of using a split screen in a program like Excel. But I'll try it for a while to see if I can avoid posting too much nonsense.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Weird – I clicked “New Post” under the Site Feedback Forum and it got posted in the Intermediate Forum instead.

OK, now it's in the Site Feedback Forum.
Jan. 16
Paul Hightower edited this comment Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So if 3 would've been a mixed raise, what would 4 or 5 have been?
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK, on the given auction, 1-1; 1NT-2, agreeing that 2NT shows extras is plausible, but you could assume instead 2 shows a semi-balanced hand or doubt about stoppers while 2NT shows a classic minimum.

I am accustomed to treating NMF as showing a five card major and usually 11+ hcp (over a presumed 12-14 1NT rebid), but with some partners I play jump suit rebids by responder as forcing and so NMF does not promise 5 of responder's major. On today's auction East might have, for example,
K876 A4 A109752 3 and would like to bid spades and then make an invitational raise of diamonds. Playing the jump to 3 over 1NT as forcing, we would need to cycle through NMF. (But I've never played both 2 and 2 as NMF, so we would use 2.)

Jan. 16
Paul Hightower edited this comment Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How do you know what 1-1; 1NT-2; 2NT is ? Sounds like a minimum to me, unless you've discussed it. Again, I fail to see any difference between a limit+ bid or strictly limit. What am I missing?

OK, I did not realize that 2 forced 2. So after that responder describes his hand and opener would place the contract.
Jan. 16
Paul Hightower edited this comment Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, I don't see how one-way vs. two-way was an issue here. Either opener did not trust responder to have 11 points, or opener was scared of his club holding, or (as Leonard admits) he assumed a “clever” agreement whereby 2NT would show a max. How does the sequence 1-1; 1NT-2 (invitational) solve any of those problems? It's the definition of “invitational” and the follow-ups that matter.

Edit: Well, that's what I wrote, but on this board I really should attach an IMO or “it seems to me” or some such qualifier :)
Jan. 16
Paul Hightower edited this comment Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed. To amplify the last point, you have three options: call the director (politely); speak to the director or perhaps a club official privately; or keep quiet. Sometime I hope to go an entire year without instructing the opponents :)
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do not play Walsh and have the agreement with all of my partners that the specific sequence 1-(pass)-1-(1) ; dbl shows four hearts. There is little advantage in playing a double of hearts to show spades, since opener can simply rebid 1. Not playing support doubles I would expect double to 18-19 hcp balanced. Playing support doubles I would expect the double to be support, and I agree that playing Walsh there is no reason for opener to double to show a major.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I redoubled, but I've moved since I posted this problem and can't recall what happened. No hand records for team games, unfortunately.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are at least two reasonable approaches:
(1) Transfer-then-3NT as “choice of games.” Responder might choose to insist on a five card major with a distributional hand, to avoid opener passing despite a fit. That seems questionable on a poor suit as in this post.
(2) Transfer-then-3NT as a question: “do you have 3 trumps?” Opener does not exercise judgement, but responder might bid Stayman on a 5332 hand, or even just blast 3NT.

I feel responder is in better position to exercise judgment, so I favor method 2, but I have not performed any detailed analysis to be confident either way.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand rates to play very well in clubs on a 4-4 or better fit, and partner should never pass 2 with only three – 3 spades, 1 heart, 3 clubs would leave at least six diamonds. I will guess to correct 2 to 2.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assuming 2NT is 20-21 or stronger, odds favor trying for game rather than settling for a part-score. Transfer, then 3NT. Hands like this are why I tell partners this sequence is a question, not a choice – don't guess to play 3NT on a flat hand.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Focusing partner's attention on spade and diamond honors seems right.
1-2
2-5
6-pass
I'm not sure I would bid 7 looking at both hands, let alone at the table, and 6 making 7 sounds like it scored very well.
Jan. 12
1 2 3 4 ... 16 17 18 19
.

Bottom Home Top