Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Scott Needham
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Al Moyse.
May 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do you mean “another suit” than the one agreed as trump? Examples?

Care to describe your response structure?
May 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Clarification: We play three two-suited calls over 1SNT, two show 5+-5+ and one is 5-4-3-1. We want 6-key for these auctions and are waffling on explicit two-suit agreement auctions like 1S-2H/2S-3H and 1D-2C/3C-3D
May 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see notable players in the “abstain” category. I'd like to know why the abstainers have no opinion: question framed poorly? think 4thSGF is bad (though same problems exist, I think, with 4thSF1)?

Frances: In this partnership, we have to rebid 1S even with weak NT-type hands. Not my choice, but nevertheless….
May 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As implied above, I have no problem with the concept of a best lie…I just wonder why partner, with a stopper, doesn't want to bid it. Seems to create a bevy of possible pitfalls.
May 27, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree that both types of holdings are positional, but maybe for clarity “positional” should refer to the holding that wants the lead coming up to it, not through it.
May 27, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does the “anything else” have a natural meaning, or does 2N claim – more hari-kari – a “positional” rather than a true stopper? If 3C is the CA: After the 4thSGF call, what do you call, as opener, with KJxx=xx=AQxx=Axx?

I'm in the camp that would call 2N and expect 3C to show the H short 4x1s and 4-4-5s; this partner, and apparently Benoit, would not.
May 27, 2014
Scott Needham edited this comment May 27, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So, realizing I have created terminological hari-kari by referring to something like Ax as “positional,” when usually folks refer to the Qx or QTx holding as “positional” –

It seems that you would call 3C as opener holding KJxx=xx=AQxx=Axx? and if partner holds 2=5=3=xxx, s/he must call 3H or 3D? but with 2=5=3=Qxx or 3=5=3=Qx, s/he will call 3N?

And then if you hold AJxx=Kx=AQxx=xxx, you will also call 3C?
May 27, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True, but how do you see the odds?

Assuming 20-21 2N, they have 15 HCP, and, if RHO is reasonably sane, s/he has 8 in . There is some possibility RHO has only 6 . There is some possibility that partner has 9-10 HCP in one 5-cd suit, in which RHO has shortness – I hope partner recognizes this for what is best (play our own 3X? tap RHO and take control?).

You pays your money….Want to play 3X vs. even 300 for 3X-2? Want to let them play 3C? What is the risk of -470? What contract do you think is best? 3N-1 or -3 if RHO holds AKJTxx(x) and a crucial A? I'm just saying: I'll bet it _is_ our hand.

Roger, what was the layout?
April 24, 2014
Scott Needham edited this comment April 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I want responder to have a penX option, or a pass-forcing-double option with direct negX (better). At these colors, it's a simple calculation, one that can be made by both partners: I want to play 3CX for 500+ (aggressive) since at absolute best we will make 490 and dummy will likely have no C. In other vulnerability situations, bidding might be best.
April 24, 2014
Scott Needham edited this comment April 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Alvin, I was boosting 1-(1)-X-(XX)//2-(P)-P-(2)*//2. I say “5-5.5” b/c KQxx depends upon the location of the A.

*, as some have said, = cagey. The 3 call in other auctions on this deal clarifies a bit.
March 31, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If N-S are willing to stop in 1N with 24 HCP, what you gonna do? Sounds to me like someone is swinging the board, sandbagging into a predictable balance by E-W.
March 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
N holds a weakish, distributional, 5-5 1/2 loser hand. Partner's call makes it much better. Even though there is some worry that partner holds a min negX with wasted values in and short , N is now worth 2, especially in a structure where reverses are 1RF. Now, after 2, 2 is both cheap and very descriptive.
March 26, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Excellent point, acknowledged below. I was fresh from missing the slam….
Feb. 10, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I notice that I used “strongish” in the poll verbiage, which is really not relevant to the question, but happened really to matter on this layout: my hand was KQx ATxx KTxx Jx.
Feb. 10, 2014
Scott Needham edited this comment Feb. 10, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nicholas: These were the priorities I have always assumed, though 2 & 3 might be reversed: 4=1=5=KQx; I agree w/ Tom, I prefer not to rebid 1S with balanced hands.
Feb. 9, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Irrelevant comment: Good spot for NFB. Anytime your weak HCP/long suit/too-much-playing-strength-to-pass kind of hand requires the use of a whole level….
Feb. 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So, to refer to my comment above: Too bad the pudding is cold (my Brit friends say this is a very cool Anglophilish thing to say), but if you posted partner's hand after 1-(2), I wonder what would be the expert consensus call?
Feb. 4, 2014
Scott Needham edited this comment Feb. 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I tend to agree with Aviv on bridge logic grounds, but this approach is subject to situational wrinkles that might need to be unwound ATT to Our disadvantage. There is virtue in Kit's structure since we don't need to wonder each time a similar situation applies. I wonder: What is the minimum hand each of you would place with partner, since s/he, too, is put in a bind holding clubs over the diamond overcall, and might wish for firm understandings about what a negX followed by 3 would convey.
Feb. 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Leo: Just curious: Assuming opps play some form of ICB in MH's auction (3, then, probably a mixed raise kind of hand), and it goes (1)-2-(3)-P//(P) to you, do you reopen with MH's example hand, and if so, what method of scoring and vul?
Jan. 27, 2014
Scott Needham edited this comment Jan. 28, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top