Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Robert Stevens
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 32 33 34 35
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, but are you going to beat it anyway when North holds AQx? Possible but difficult to believe that declarer will both need for tricks and be unable to keep your hand off lead.
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Leading the Q from shortness is absurd. North is presumably looking at about 12hcp, so leading a short suit is both dangerous and pointless; even when South has strong he will not get in to cash them. So the only question is what to play if North holds KQ10 or KQ10x. I think therefore the J makes sense. And it has the desirable side effect, from KQ10, that declarer will very likely think that North has the long and play to keep North off lead in the suit.
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And the singleton deuce, four, or six?
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jenish
If anyone gives an answer privately to your question about removing names please post it. I too ran into the same thing: one naturally wishes to preserve people's anonymity.
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because, Marshall, the original post implies that it did agree . To wit. Suppose responder had bid 3N, and opener now bids 4N. Would anyone take that as RKC for ? No. Now responder, unable to bid 3N, bids 4 and opener 4N. That logically has to be natural and a suggestion about strain and level because the simple fact that responder could not bid 3N does not change anything - he had to bid something. But David says that 4N is RKC. Thus 3 must have implied a fit. The fact that the hand manifestly does not have a fit does not change the logic of the bidding according to the description given by the poster. And if now responder bids 4? Well opener would like to bid RKC for .. but by the same logic it is not possible.

As usual the cubist cue bid ends in ambiguity. Cue bids are not inherently bad, but you had sure better understand what they guarantee or imply.
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The question as posed does not have a precise answer although one could ballpark it.
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't get this contention by David. Why would partner, with x xx QJ10x AKxxxx bid 4 after 3. Would that not show a control if, as is contended, that 3 showed a fit?
And, even if it would not, what about Qxxx? Searching for the moth eaten fit instead of the presumed good 63 fit?
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My experience otherwise.
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Speaking of the former auction, my favorite phrase again: “shows cards”. On what possible hand is opener going to remove? So why not just call it penalty?
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
:) Yes. Who wants to psyche them out of of all strains?
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here is the golden road to contracts:

1.Play four card minors. With 4-4 + open 1
2.If you can't stand that, don't play forcing notrump
3. With 55 in the black suits open 1
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Glad I don’t play with either
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe that not opening near Yarboro might be beneficial.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whenever I read a post entitled “double or takeout” I know I am going to explode in indignation reading the answers. I think I will have to avoid doing so in future.
April 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
According to Bob it definitively, not just by agreement mind you but written on stone tablets, shows a hand he will (almost) never hold. What a system.
April 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He cleaned my clock at poker.
March 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes Francis, I know where you want to be. I can see that for myself. Now convince me that your methods get to 4N, 6N or 5C when appropriate.
March 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The poser did not say whether IMPs or MPs, but regardless passing seems like pure masochism.
March 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think anyone did much wrong. Aiming for after partner bid 3N is madness. You want a lead through your partner's AKxx Kxx AKJxxx x? Q, A, and a promotion for Jxx? Or to find KQxx QJx AKQxx x?
March 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What does it mean? Well, that can only be answered by the cadre of trapeze artists who think that South had an opening bid
Feb. 27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 32 33 34 35
.

Bottom Home Top