Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Paul Maris
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course 7-5 is also a possibility.
We play this method (4M and 4NT) over 1M, 2M and 3M.
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“You may use your favorite 2-suited intervention.”
That's why I voted for 2 (Ghestem, & ).
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
"The results from 28 of the 32 tables are available in BBO archival files. It was played in 6NT 20 times, always with the spade ten lead. Jill was one of the two declarers who ducked; she later executed the endplay to make the contract. The only other successful declarer was Makiko Sato of the Japan’s Women’s team; her RHO did fly with the ace."

I didn't count tables/results, but also available on BBO: https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=65823

It was played in the d'Orsi Seniors Bowl by Hans Vergoed from the Netherlands in 6NT on the 10 lead.
He was not only a succesful declarer (#3), but he also ducked (again #3), RHO did not fly with the ace and Vergoed made his contract on the endplay.
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The first thread started with “I’ve seen this before” whereupon a discussion started what “Extended Stayman” was supposed to mean.
Well, I’ve seen this before, moreover it has a name, and I considered it a good idea to share the source of this with you. As I stated, the article covers two pages, so my quote was very limited. Quote extended: “To use three diamonds in this sense has the additional advantage that it can also be employed as…” and so on. So your conclusion that SID has only one meaning was premature.
As for the rest, I have no intention to discuss the merit of this method.
Oct. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The idea is old. Bridge International (the successor of Bridge Magazine), July 1984, in te section “Modern Acol Bidding” by Eric Crowhurst, S.I.D. - Stayman In Doubt. The article covers two pages.
It works like this: after 1NT-2; 2M, 3 (I quote) “confirming the existence of a four-four major fit but warning the opener that the responder's holding is completely balanced and that the hands might therfore play better in no-trumps than in a suit contract.”
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5(+) / 5(+).
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Anyway, the partner of the 6-bidder should have passed 6 conform the good old rule: a jump to slam ends the bidding. Of course, other bidding sequences are conceivable.
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Craig
That's what I said: normally exactly 4 hearts, BUT when responder has a 5(+)card, he has taken responsibility to show this with his next bid.
We play it the other way around, namely Negative (or Non-forcing) Free Bids, thus 2 = NF, via negative double is forcing (for one round, your forcing 2 response). And we play 1-(1)-3 as GF with 6card.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unlike other contributors, IMO this is NOT a support double situation.
In 1-(Pass)-1-(1) responder showed 4+ hearts, with emphasis on plus. So a support double or 2-bid reveals the degree of fit and partner can take advantage of that knowledge and bid accordingly. And yes, it is possible that there is only a 4/3-fit.
In 1-(1)-Double responder has normally exactly 4 hearts. There may be a few exceptions: (1) when responder wants to treat a 5card as a 4card or has no ambition to show a 5card, in other words if he is only interested when opener can produce 4card support; (2) when responder has a 5(+)card, he has taken responsibility to show this with his next bid.
So in this situation it is not useful to show a 3card via a support double.
I play Double as diamonds in a hand not suitable for a 3-bid (“cue bid double”, a specific form of stolen bid).
Also interesting what 2NT could mean in this situation. One could agree on either G/B or unusual, i.e. a 3-bid with a 4card -suit (while 3 shows 5/5).
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, may I ask you to share that reason with us? Thanks.
Aug. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can imagine that there are hands on which I want to bid a 4card spade suit, just as after (1)-1-(Pass). In fact I am searching for a 4/4-fit in this case.
On the other hand, if partner decides to overcall 1 with also a 4card spade suit, isn't it his responsibility to make sure that a possible spade fit will not be lost?
So I would suggest that 1 in the given situation basically shows a 5(+)card. In the rare case that I bid 1 with only a 4card suit, of course I have a plan on how to continue the bidding.
Finally, in my opinion the combination of just a 1-bid and the Snapdragon double works fine.
Aug. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Penalty!
Exeption if no room for game invitation, in this example a double of 3.
All options “game try with …” look like ‘stolen bid’.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, completely different. My partner's hands were respectively

19: 6 5 9 6 2 K Q 9 4 3 2 A K
23: 9 6 10 9 6 4 A K Q J 7 3 2
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The essence of the post were the hands, not the results.
I'm absolutely sure this has nothing to do with a bug in the hand generator. It was just a coincidence, once in a lifetime.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Kerry - if you refer to my post: third hand play is not splitting as Monty already pointed out above. My post was concerning third hand play: it is standard to play the lowest of touching honors, my example was an exception.
June 27
Paul Maris edited this comment June 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
9, highest from (four) small when the highest two are adjacent (touching); particularly from 98(-) where the 9 shows 0 or 2 higher.
June 27
Paul Maris edited this comment June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is playing the jack from Q-J-10 (against notrump, when partner leads low, 4th/5th not relevant, and dummy has 2 or 3 small).
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“(…) and bottom of a sequence if playing third hand high.”
With one classic exception.
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'll convince partner to play Kickback.
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Mike - no idea at the moment I bid 1NT, after that anything could happen. But after Pass-Pass probably 7.
Partner has J10x x xxxx QJ10xx.
And RHO Qxx AK10xxx xx AK.
May 31
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
.

Bottom Home Top