Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Sartaj Hans
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whao ! There is no subtlety about this guy. I'd like to hear his/her name.
And also a recent comment by S. Gaynor mentioning some players acknowledging cheating via cellphones. That was another whao !
Who were these dudes ?

Aug. 16, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Josh Sher on da money
Aug. 15, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Enjoyed it !
Aug. 8, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great event. Loved it.
Aug. 2, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good point about precision. In general, “natural” players overestimate the efficiency of their style. They're probably ahead on certain kinds of slams but its a lot easier competing at the low levels playing big club.

“Therefore, he would always bid 2 with a doubleton heart”

Not convinced. 2S would give the partnership a chance to bid game (and play the better partscore) when responder is 45 in the majors.

Also 2S over 2H is not clearly forcing. What if responder is 4-4 in the majors and scrambling ?
July 16, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think Bobby tells this story as the hand that lost him the event. He and Paul Lavings finished second.
July 15, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I was reading through 1NT versus 2NT, the whole argument seemed tainted with the stain of the actual result on the hand.

However, the item below makes a good point.
“If the hand had the same playing strength but were more notrump oriented, then I would agree with the 2NT rebid”

There is no need for us to “describe” our hand to our partner when he is so limited. An off-centric approach like Kit's here might be better. Very interesting line of thought.
July 4, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On the points of interest (my summaries of OP's detail)

1. “Multi 2 affects results” : So does precision diamond, weak no-trump, strong club.
Suggestion: Lets ban all systems and enforce 2/1 game-force. Some exceptions allowed when they are proven to be constructive

2. “Multi as poison gas with no disclosure” : Thats a lot of text and opinion on a hand where we don't know what the real explanations were
Suggestion: No need to work about this because multi 2 will be banned, see # 1

3.“ Cheating signals behind screens with noise or no noise” : These seem to be applied only by current practitioners of the multi.
Suggestion: Ban them all for life

4. “ Theoretical bridge discussion on keeping the game clean” : Yes, thats a good idea. Lets ban the multi, its practitioners. That will help. And yes, somehow we failed to mention, that it will attract hordes of new players, put bridge on TV and bring lots of money and popularity for our favourite game.
June 21, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do the junior trials play extra boards because the setting is BBO ?

May 26, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Excellent series of articles, Gavin. Keep up the great work.

May 26, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul,

My partnerships prefer to play this double as “Extra values without wastage in their suit”. Both additional shape and high-cards serve as additional motivation to act.

Takeout/Cards as a desciption does not do justice.

The key is to specify whether the expectation is for partner to bid or to pass. In Kit's case, I believe he prefers the expectation of passing while I prefer that partner bids.

Takeout/Cards does not specify either way for takeout suggests bidding and cards suggests passing.
May 25, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“As to what the double means, I suspect only Kit thinks the two choices are ”takeout“ or ”penalty/cards“. I think the rest of the world plays that double is ”takeout/cards“. In other words, West has extra values that suggest we can make something above 4, but also enough defense to suggest we can beat 4 if responder is so weak and/or balanced that she has to pass the double”

Kit's definition has the advantage of clarity.
The “Rest of the world” definition proposed covers way too much ground to be workable cleanly.
May 24, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The very best teams just that because they are good at keeping their head together through the tension of a set.
Knowing the score will dissipate the tension and their edge would be a lot smaller.
There is enough randomness in bridge (as it is) and having a live score would only serve to increase the luck element.
May 5, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
this is great stuff guys !
March 17, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Enjoyed the write up.

Good one to remember “Bidding seems to lead to luckier results than passing”.
Feb. 20, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North didnt open the bidding and South didnt act over 1S. How can N/S be in a force ?
They bid a game on shape, not on high cards.

South gets most of the blame in my book. Are those spades ever going to take any tricks ?
Jan. 31, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gavin, what are the best regionals by quality of opponents ?
I've been told NYC and Palm Beach but what others ?
Jan. 18, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interested in your comment : “We usually bid w/ 5-5, 6-4 or good 5-4 after 4S x or p p x”

Do you believe in any difference in the auctions
(4S) X (P) P

and
1D (4S) P (P);
X (P) ?

i.e. Open 4S versus Overcall 4S
Or do your guidelines usually apply to both ?
Jan. 14, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit, your clear conception of the double has a lot going for it.

As a practical matter, perhaps, you dont have to worry about wide-range for the opener, being a strong clubber.

What do you play double as after 1C (strong) - 4S and what is it after 1C - (4S) - P - (P) ?
Jan. 12, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The partnership needs to establish the objective of the double.

Are we aiming to
a) protect our equity because we (may) have game in high-cards
b) make a game based on extra shape
c) a mix of the two objectives.


If our objective is a), then responder rips only with exceptional shape and thus this is a clear pass
If our objective is b), then responder passes only with wastage in their suit and thus this is a clear bid.
If our objective is c), then it is bit of a lottery


I believe that the case for a) is weak because both players have already taken a descriptive bid.
We have already hypothetically protected our equity in 13-opp-13 HCP hands (responder doubles) and in
15-opp-10 hands (opener opens strong NT), we cannot get value out of 18-opp-9 hands only.

Contrast that to the case for b) : lots of extra shape, possibly a void, when not so rich in high-cards
or some extra shape, singleton, with extra high-cards.

c) should be the partnership's objective only in auctions that
begin with a preempt (For example, they open 4S and now since that has wiped out all chances for us to
protect our equity in any form, the double tries to cover wider ground)


On the whole, double is my choice as South and 4NT as north (as Qx is useless if the objective of our double was to make a game based on extra shape.)
Jan. 11, 2011
.

Bottom Home Top