Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Sathya Bettadapura
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 55 56 57 58
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I found a parking spot called “Park-it-on-market”, 614 Market St which seems surprisingly affordable - $1 per hour. Looks like a 15-minute walk from Manchester Hyatt. Has anyone tried it ?
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Parking at the host Hotel look very expensive. Back in 2008 there used to be a huge parking lot not too far from the venue which was moderately priced. No mention of it this time.
Nov. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner could have made the same bid with KJxx. Now there's no lead that lets 7 make. And partner never had a chance to say anything after his double of 4.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, that was just a question I asked of people who do play transfers. Transferring into opponents suit to show limit raise is really neat.
Nov. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 2 is limit, what do you do with a natural-non-forcing 2 hand ?
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On the hand where you bid 7 against their 6, if partner's are headed by the KQJ he should be leading a non- as he knows that you'd not be pushing them to 7 if the Ace you held was in s.
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem really is that whatever East does can be horribly wrong not knowing how strong partner is. Bidding 3 is obviously worse than doubling 2nt. But even doubling 2nt can put partner in a tight spot when he didn’t want to do anything except transfer and pass. Input from responder seems critical for East to have any chance of getting it right.
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Reaching Par at MP is not for the faint-hearted. As Michael said the double says or he wishes it could say “we could have made 2”. Which in MP translates to “We should defend 3 doubled when it's right unless of course it's making in which case we should be bidding 3”. Whether to pass or bid 3 is the kind of decision that gives a migraine to East. But without partner's input which tells you that you have the balance of power it's even more of a guess for East and he just needs to pass. On this hand if East passes 3 doubled EW are chalking up -670 soon. If you don't have an occasional -670 or -730 on your score card you're not playing effective MP.
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand what reason you have to believe that the bidding is not going the same way at most tables who play 15-17 NT.
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure if bidding 2nt with a hand that has tenace holdings like AQx and KJXx is good idea as it forces the auction to 3 opposite a possible weak hand.
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
All that's true. But does it mean you were going to bid something ? Or pass and wait for post-portem ?
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is more credible than the story about Terence Reese's focus… :-)
Oct. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
May be he thought he had already shown control with 4 and support by bidding 4nt.
Oct. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because he's pretty sure he can beat 5 and not sure about his prospects in 5/6 ?
Oct. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think partner is strongly suggesting that we're better off defending than playing. He's as much in the dark about the hand as we are. When stuck at the 5-level, he knows we can't let opponents play undoubled and he's not sure of what to do. The double is a classic DSIP. Partner could easily have something like Kxx x AQJxx Axxx and still double.
Oct. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I’m not sure the Q wouldn’t have been interpreted as an emphatic come-on for .
Oct. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Once you decide partner must have a stopper”. That’s is not clear at all. How and when do you conclude that ?
Oct. 22
Sathya Bettadapura edited this comment Oct. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for all the responses.

Imagine lading the 4 from K73 QT74 8 T9652. When partner wins the Ace and returns the 9 it appears that declarer has 4. His most likely shape now appears to be 3433. For high cards he has only two red Kings, must have the A and quite likely the K. If the suit runs, you are quickly down to a 5-card ending. If you hang to the QT it looks like you could get end-played with a in the 3-card ending if declarer comes down to Ax x.

Declarer's actual hand was A986 K863 K6 KQ8. If his hand was Axx K863 Kxx Kxx, you can not escape the end-play once partner played back the 9. There's additional pressure to hang to three s too which makes a successful defense against 11 tricks even harder.

But at T3 there's a limit to how much you can analyze. It looks like if partner has the 8, unblocking the T might give you options in defense later that would not be available if you did not do so. And if he doesn't have the 8 you still retain a tenace over declarer. But everything changes when partner wins a surprising trick early on.
Oct. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ian,

To the best of my knowledge the format of Lead Problems does not lend itself to presenting defense problems such as this one. If you believe otherwise please feel free to post this problem as a lead problem and post the link here. It'll be educational for the rest of us.
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, don't understand what you're trying to say. You did win the first trick and returned the 9. Are you saying you wouldn't win the first trick or not return the 9 if you did win the first trick ?
Oct. 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 55 56 57 58
.

Bottom Home Top