Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Sabrina Miles
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would not say P wore punisher T-shirt. His hand was 63 A653 A52 AT73. Since I had already said my piece about the hand, I passed out his 4NT. He insisted that 4NT was RCKB…even though no trump suit had been agreed upon! In hindsight, if I could change my bid…I would still open 1 and perhaps change my rebid to 2…but given the vulnerability,I liked the pushing 3 bid a bit more. I'd be interested to hear how others would bid the hand.

BTW, 7NT, 7 and 7 are all on in this hand. I posted the query because I wondered if anyone else would see his bid as RCKB ask. I think slam is off with the 3NT bid. Thus I read the 4NT bid as saying: “I heard you, and this is where we play.”
Sept. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You think that W will sit for the double? E has already indicated that he has no preference in the majors. If p does pull the X for 2, 2NT or 3NT are both viable alternative contracts.

Edited to add, did not see that 2 was natural. In any event, not a bad double….and still alternatives should p enter the auction.
Sept. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3X went for -800 at 4 tables in my section. S, sitting with 16 HCP and KJxx, just passed and N then doubles. (Luckily, my N does not). While N-S can make 5NT and 4 on this hand, the best N-S can do is hope that E-W bids. I thought it was reasonable bid – guess most folks do.
Sept. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I prefer a 2NT response to show . When partner pre-accepts (indicating at least 1of top 3 honors and at least 3 pieces) by bidding 3, the problem becomes a bit more difficult – whether to sign off in 3NT or to look for the minor slam.
Sept. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The hand does not meet the Rule of 15; why open in the 4th seat at all? Unless you use Cohen's rule of CRIFS- “Cohen's Rule In Fourth Seat.” Any time the opening is borderline (here 8 HCP and a void – with 5c) evaluate your opponents! With very strong opponents pass it out and get a middlish score/result; if you look up at your opponents and see Schlemiel and Schlimazel (the worst pair), then open the bidding. You can push them around in the auction and will get an extra trick or two in the play/defense.
Sept. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm assuming the South did not neglect to alert the 2 bid.
Sept. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Roland, thanks for your comments. I was puzzled why (and how) 6 pairs ended in a 4 contract. Perhaps many holding W cards opened 2 and thought that a 4 response was forcing and asking for a description opposite a yarborough. I must admit, that I did not think of this possibility. I doubt that most casual partnerships have discussed it. It is now something to put on my discuss list.
Sept. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand was played recently at a Regional pairs event. P’s hand was:

2 83 AKQJ742 AKT

(N.B. opponents have a 9 card and fit)

In any event, the hand was played at 38 tables. Five pairs found 6 — in 4 cases it was played in the W, of course I played it in the E; 14 pairs played 5 (W) and 1 played 5 (E); 5 played 4(W) and 2 played 4 (E); 6 played 3NT (E) and 1 played 3NT (W); 1 pair played in 4NT (E); 1 pair played 7 (W); 1 pair played 5 (S); and 1 pair played 4X (N, making)

In the post mortem, p indicated that she bid 5 to keep opponents from finding their potential fit and because she thought it a reasonably makable contract with little support. I bid 6 because this p has very VERY rarely overbid her hand; if she thought 5 was reasonable with nothing from me, then I thought that 6 had a reasonable shot too — I envisioned p having a 8 card solid suit, 1 outside ace doubleton, a void and a 3 card suit.

My concern is whether I am bidding my cards or bidding based on who my partner is for the event. Had p bid 3 asking me to describe my hand, I most likely would bid 3NT — although I do think 4 showing 3 pieces is also an accurate description. I note that when the hand was played in the E, it was mainly played in 3NT. I posted the query to determine whether folks thought 6, based on the cards held, was a reasonable bid.

BTW, I posted the actual results from the table not to be resulting, but to satisfy some folks curiosity.
Sept. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Roland, 2 opener shows 8.5 quick tricks or 22+ HCP. It is game forcing opposite a 3 HCP responder. 3 would have shown declarer's suit and asked for a description of responder's hand – here that response would most likely be 3NT or 4.
Sept. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think such a proposal is reasonable at the level in which the pros in question play. For practical reasons, pros play for a sponsor. Although I am not privy to their financial arrangements, I dare say that it would be a rather “good paying” sponsor that other pros would be likely to be enticed. Thus, your proposal in essence asks some pros to turn down some rather lucrative offers by well paying sponsors to say I am unwilling to play with those other folks on my team. Casting no aspersions here, I note that Boye did play on a team with the pair in question when hired by a client.

Sponsors dictate the conditions. Yes, folks may decline offers. But the question remains is it “fair” and/or equitable to have some pros refuse to play at a sponsors' request because of the sponsors choice of teammates? Especially when the governing body has made no finding of guilt. Make no mistake, the sponsor will be and is able to find other pros willing to accept the money to play if some folks are so principled. Yet, the question remains is it really fair to request/require some pros to forego such a contract, without some official finding that the pair in question is really a cheat.
Aug. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I might sometimes fudge a bit and open a 19 HCP hand 2NT, but I would hardly ever bid 2NT with 22+ HCP. There is quite a difference between p needing 2-3 HCP and needing 6 HCP for game.
Aug. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Martin….too funny!
Aug. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On more than a few occasions I have had to say, I believe I (or my partner) still has a bid. Surprisingly, the picking up of the cards without 3 successive passes occurs both when there has been competitive bidding (at least initially) as well as when there has been no intervention. Since the declaration that the bidding may not be over can disclose UI, I think it behooves folks to wait before picking up the bidding cards. OTOH, I cannot see a TD penalizing a pair for UI when opponents did not give the opportunity for the bidding to legally conclude.
Aug. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whoa! What is South's 1NT? I guess its almost as poor as the West's 2 call. Just proves that if you give opponents enough rope to hand themselves and they will do more damage than you possibly could.
Aug. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
why exactly do I want to push my opponents to their non vulnerable game? Surely they will sacrifice, at this vulnerability, and will most likely make.
Aug. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hmmm….does the conversation then parallel the present day “controversy” regarding tablets instead of screens? The more things change, the more they remain the same.
Aug. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Soloway Jump Shifts. There are just too many methods – that take up less room, and communicate just as effectively – to convey the hand distribution and type. Besides, it takes away the really weak jump shift (0-6 HCP) that can be crucial to understanding partners hand.
Aug. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“instantly pulled” by whom? The 3NT bidder or the 3NT bidder's partner. If it was the 3NT bidder, what makes you believe that it would not be pulled by his (obviously a woman wouldn't have had such a BIT ;) ) partner? I find it hard to believe that you would get to play this in 3NTX. It is going to be pulled by one or the other. In any event, what was the final result?
Aug. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't a raise to 3 merely the law of total tricks? Partner is not confused, since you did not bid 2 initially.
Aug. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, you need a bit more for slam here. I have learned, the hard way, that looking for too many magic cards (generally 3+) may be a losing preposition. Here, we do rank to have game and get an Ave + on the board. slam may be in the cards, but it is too risky. While it may lead to a top board, it is just as likely to lead to a bottom one. An easy Avg + is sometimes a good thing (okay p, see, I learned, I will take the easy 6NT and not go for the find the Q 7)
Aug. 22, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top