Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Sathya Bettadapura
1 2 3 4 ... 47 48 49 50
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you bid 3 LHO bids 4. Partner has Kx AKxx JTx Jxxx. 6 is a great contract without a lead…
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 4 is Kickback Exclusion, partner responds no Aces, hopefully that's the first step in your methods, so 4.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We have a winner, Ben Kristensen !

Dummy has QTxxx xx KQxx Ax and declarer 9x KJx Ax KQTxxx. On the lead of 5 declarer might yet make ten tricks by putting up the Queen, but leading a high honor gives the defense little chance.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Gene. Once you have won an event in a limited flight you have to encourage people to play up. If they don't, may be it's not a bad idea to REQUIRE them to do so. Whether winning at the National level or district level should be the criterion for barring a player from playing the same flight again is the question.

As our team won the event at the National level in 2014, I stayed away from GNT A for two years. But I had an opportunity to play on a good team with friends this year, so I played in GNT A again. But I'd have no problem if there was a law that barred me from playing in GNT A again.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Those who passed for penalty got it right. Partner had Qxxxx Kx AQTxx Q and had an easy double if you passed RHO's 5. RHO had both honors, so 4 makes but 5 fails. Opponents are down 2. If partner had the same cards in pointed suits but AX and X, you would make 5, but at IMPs partner would still double I guess. As is often the case it would have been harder at MP.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I see it there're multiple problems here. In low population districts logistics is a problem. In high population districts good teams are penalized simply because of the sheer number of better teams in their districts compared to their low-density counterparts. A unified on-line tournament across districts solves both problems. The tournament can be held in multiple rounds over a period of time. The tournament has to be monitored to ensure that there're no illegal communications among participants. So people may have to travel to their local club with their devices that let them connect to the internet. The solution is not perfect as it does exclude people who can not play on-line. But considering that it solves otherwise unsolvable problems it might be an acceptable one.
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Aaron,

To some extent it depends on how many experts you have in your district. In our district, District 21, we have three hall of famers and at least 5 National champions. If they decide to play the GNT the rest of us don't have too much of a realistic chance as the results of the last two years would testify to.

You can argue that GNT Open is meant for National Champions anyway and that's the reason Flight A was separated from Open Flight. But in the NAOP you don't have that distinction. If the abovementioned experts decide to compete, the rest if us don't have much chance in the NAOP either and there're many players who can not play in a lower flight as they have too many MPs. May be we should have Open Flight and Flight A in the NAOP's too perhaps ?

The other problem I noticed when I played in the GNT A Finals (and won the event) in the summer Nationals in Las Vegas 2014 is that the strength of districts varies a lot. Quite a few of the teams we played were weaker than many D21 Flight B teams. Our second round D21 match was closer than the closest match we faced in Las Vegas.

My estimate is that among the 25 districts there're only five or six districts that are upto the strength of a given flight. This makes it an unfair contest for those of us who happen to live in stronger districts. My guess is that a couple of D21 teams in any flight can probably take on teams from a higher flight from many other districts.
April 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because you play Gazzilli and you can show a balanced 15-17 over 1nt if need be. So you don't have to suppress a good suit.
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whether you're in a force or not, it's clear opponents are sacrificing and partner bid 4 expecting 4 to make. I do hope partner doesn't pass if you do :)
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Should you play different methods depending on whether it's MP or IMPs ? May be the light invite is more important at IMPs ?
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, that's a good agreement to have, as I too noted below. The problem is that there are different ways of handling such situations each with their own set of trade-offs. It'd be nice if there was a default. Sadly there isn't.
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner might think that over 4. But when you bid again when he shows no support he should re-think it. I know it's ambiguous, but it does serve a useful purpose of saving space to cue-bid a critical control that's needed either for a slam or a slam. On this hand 5 is a good alternative as a control will give you an excellent play for 6 as long as partner has his voluntary 4 bid.

But let's say your s were not solid. Say you had Jx AKTxxx AJ Kxx. Now if you bid 4 should it imply a control ? If not you need to make the ambiguous sounding 4 call. Partner should give priority to cue-bidding if he has a control in preference to treating 4 as natural.

This does mean that you'll have trouble bidding a red two-suiter. The trade-off is that you can bid a self-sufficient single-suiter or a hand with support.
April 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With opponents pre-empting in , trying to play 4nt as natural seems too limiting. Sure it's possible to construct hands where 4nt is the only makeable game contract, but I don't mind giving that up in favor of something more useful. Cue-bidding opponents' suit in such auctions elsewhere is used to set trumps or when there's no clear direction on a GF hand. Either of those treatments is my preference for 4 and of course it cannot promise a control. So 4nt should probably be the same hand except that it does promise a control or perhaps RKC ?
April 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even the best of defenders go wrong when making 4 discards on a long suit. What makes it really hard is that both defenders have to co-operate in painting a different picture of a hand than the one they're looking at and they have to do it in a way that's consistent from both sides of the table.

I found this hand interesting because it's more interesting at IMPs than MP, the opposite of what is usually true most of the time. At MP you can't give up on the overtrick in a normal contract and lead a at T4 and go down. But why do you do that at IMPs ? You have no trouble with finding 4 discards, and if nothing interesting happens or if you are not sure about the ending you can always lead a .
April 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK, but he would bid with seven s, say x x KQxx AJxxxxx is a reasonable 4 bid
April 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for all the replies. West had KT9 A73 86 K9742. The play didn't go this way at either table. Both declarers played a at T4 and went down quickly.

My partner did play the 2 at T2, but not sure now whether he played the 7 or 9 next. I tried to construct a sequence thereafter that seemed plausible but may not be quite as convincing as if he were looking at KT9 973 86 K9742

May be a real expert can see at T2 when partner returns the T that he would be in trouble in the four-card ending and produce carding that consistently misleads the declarer. Others might see it a trick or two later.
April 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You do have a self-sufficient suit, so you should be trumps ? It'll matter only if partner has a real freak like 1=0=5=7 or 1=0=4=8 where 6 can make but not 6. But anytime he has control and even as little as a singleton , 6 rates to play well. BTW If partner has a broken suit like AJxxxx(x) you'd prefer to play in , not .
April 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not overthinking this. I'm just asking people who might be.
April 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A lone vote for 4NT by Jdonn. Agreeing to s and forward going ?
April 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assume expert opponents. Non-experts might be sending contrary signals unintentionally :)
April 10
1 2 3 4 ... 47 48 49 50
.

Bottom Home Top