Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Fleet
1 2 3 4 ... 325 326 327 328
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it quite a strange action to raise clubs with a completely balanced hand and only three trumps, particularly when there is an attractive alternative in the shape of a penalty double of the 1NT overcall.

I'm not convinced of the value of stating that 3NT by N-S is the optimal contract given that it needs, as well as the club finesse, the opponents to be unable to take three spade tricks.
4 hours ago
Richard Fleet edited this comment 3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe. Pakistan were leading going into the final set but it hadn't gone that well for them.
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner would open 1 with that hand; if he failed to do so, I think that he should bid 3 on the second round.
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner is a passed hand so could have bid a long suit without creating a force.
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Zia held this hand and doubled.

The contract went two down and he had to double to win the match (Rosenblum semi-final 1986).
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Club
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The strong artificial 2 opening is earlier than 1936. It was a feature of the “Official System” which dates back to 1931.
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My interpretation follows my consistent line in 4SF sequences: if it can logically be interpreted as a natural bid, it is one.

5SF only applies if the bid cannot logically be natural (e.g. 1-1-2-2-3; the logical interpretation of 4 in this sequence is a hand which could have bid 3 5SF but which has the values for 4NT).
9 hours ago
Richard Fleet edited this comment 9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do people really lead from AJ97 or AQ97 against this auction? OK, little reason.

The only reason for playing Q is in case declarer has the J in his hand and accidentally plays it.
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It looks to me as though you can always make 10 tricks but I'm not an infallible analyst and I don't have DF.
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought that unintuitive was a perfectly normal word. I've checked with the OED and note that it dates back to 1842.
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the suggestion, Leonard.
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not so much bad bridge as a method which is of nugatory value and which is likely to confuse the opponents.
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner has raised two level 4SF to the four level. So far as I am concerned, this is a natural bid showing the values for 4NT. It would never occur to me that he could have a splinter in support of diamonds: with this, he could have jumped to 4.

With a minimum for FG 4SF and lots of wasted values in diamonds, I would have no hesitation in passing.

As an opponent, I would have called the TD since there have been two irregularities. I would not expect the TD to adjust the score. However, if the TD had adjusted the score, I would need to consider the TD's reason and the grounds for the appeal.
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The methods might be useful for some beginners but they are hardly essential.
11 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So partner played K for no good reason to trick 1 and Q for no good reason to trick 3. Pretty impressive.
11 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pairs who play split range Michaels might feel unable to bid 2 on that hand. I don't see why defending 4 doubled (or redoubled) is a much better outcome given that the contract cannot be beaten.

I don't follow your final paragraph: I wrote unintuitive.
11 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It depends on your standards for Michaels.

Were the hand to be 5=1=2=5 or 5=0=3=5, I would overcall 1 and be happy to pass on the next round.

I must admit that I didn't bother posting the Michaels problem because I thought it clear to pass on round 2. Of course, you hit the traditional Michaels problem that you could be missing a cold game if partner has a club fit. If you're worried about that, you need to specify the minor (I used to play this way at one time).
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The sort of system that Panja sets out has been proposed on several past occasions and the EBU has always declined to licence it on the grounds of lack of bridge merit.
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'll shortly be posting an article about this hand.
15 hours ago
1 2 3 4 ... 325 326 327 328
.

Bottom Home Top