Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Scott Needham
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Corey: barring unusual distribution, I like P passing b/c you may be WEAK WEAK Michaels. Recently P passed, I took a 3rd seat non-v vs vul Mike call on JTxxx x T98xx xx, P bounced 4 and they missed their slam) Not proud of it, just sayin'….but shouldn't we expect a pass from P with a less-than-extravagant fit even if s/he were max passed should LHO take a call?
Jan. 27, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, and – merely exploratory observations, b/c I think much, perhaps most, of the time, your high ODR favors declaring – you are then protected when P holds 9-10 cards in the minors; you may defend 2 or 2 by Opener or 1N (by either opp – and will likely get a out instead of a probably much better ); and will still need to decide what to do when it comes back to you. Vulnerability of course matters and opps' Invisible Q Bid defense also…

They play 2m and we are minus 90 or 110; they play 1N and we are minus 90 or 120; we declare 3M or 3 with Opener in the slot, -1 or -2 (vul!!)? It is interesting speculation (sims anyone?) but I'm biased in favor of the high ODR.
Jan. 27, 2014
Scott Needham edited this comment Jan. 27, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I hope my brief perusal hasn't led me to miss the point here.

Lawrence, a proponent of unlimited Michaels, has this (someone else's summary, but cannot access my own files at the moment): http://www.wavada.org/Blog/2013/04/12/responses-to-two-suited-michaels-cue-bids/

“And what do you bid after 1? 2? 3? P, P ?
holding AQxxx AJxxx Qx x?”

Assuming you want to get in, 3 = pick (or short ?), X = stronger pick (or short ?) Harder situation is the 2 Michaels, since Advancer as dummy is a roadmap, but maybe just “X = pick” since Advancer will rarely have enough for game unless Intervenor is 4 losers or so. Double to get in has the added advantage that Intervenor is over opener.


Jan. 27, 2014
Scott Needham edited this comment Jan. 27, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing Maximal O/C Xs? If so, it removes all doubt about 3, doesn't it?

ATT I'd bid 6 and then listen patiently while partner said “never with 2 in .”
Jan. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just how horrible is my hand? or how horrible are the lead choices?
Jan. 9, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“You impose a mighty strain cost if you insist that an inverted minor denies a 4cM. You lose a simple way of distinguishing relative length. Another common sequence:

1 – 1

1NT – 2 (NMF, possibly 2-way if you like)

2NT – 3

And opener has no idea about responder’s relative - length.”

As between XYZ and 2-Way Checkback, I generally push 2-Way over 1X-1Y/1N because I think it is useful to know O's Y support at the 2 level. The point you raise, however, argues for straight XYZ, the flavor in which R's 2N rebid puppets to 3. Now, R may pass with , or use succeeding calls to clarify X and Y holdings. One such is

3 = GF, 5Y-4X with stiff, relay asks: 1st step = low, 2nd = high
3 = GF, 4Y-5X with stiff, relay asks: 1st step = low, 2nd = high
3 = GF, 4Y-5X-2-2
3N = GF, 5Y-4X-2-2.

Gumperz has published (somewhere) methods to distinguish X & Y holdings using both the 2 and 2 R rebids:

1m-1M/1N-2N/3-3X = 4M, 5+ m, stiff X
1m-1M/1N-2N/3-3N = 4M, 5+ m, 2-2
1m-1M/1N-2/2M or 2OM-3m = 5M, 4 m, GF
1m-1M/1N-2/2M or 2OM-3om = 5M, 4 om, GF


Jan. 8, 2014
Scott Needham edited this comment Jan. 8, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I remember a splimit as possibly 3-card limit raise values including a stiff, and I think these hands were sometimes called a “flower bid”? or is that something else entirely….
Jan. 7, 2014
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ms. Hasin: NOte that, as compared to the 3M+1 ask, the inv+ spl has the further benefit that, e.g., Jxxx AKx xxx Axx immediately knows that 3N is lookin' good.
Jan. 1, 2014
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
.
Jan. 1, 2014
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When your value call depends upon shortness, you had better have a way to find out what it is. 3-level inv+ splinter is a winner IMHO, on very many auctions, but maybe it doesn't fit the rest of your stuff?
Dec. 31, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I find that opening bid style really influences many of these problems. If partner can open junky 11s, that's one thing; if the opener is sound, I feel chicken not to commit to playing 4N.
Dec. 26, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think of it as a 4 loser hand.
Nov. 23, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think Marshall Miles advocated either 6+ solid, can be min, or 6+ one loser opposite small stiff, K+ above min.
Nov. 5, 2013
Scott Needham edited this comment Nov. 5, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems to me that, if one has decided that 2N in competition is never to play, and has not adopted Robson-Segal stuff, there are also many Intervener-Advancer auctions where it might apply, especially in a world of aggressive openings/responses: 1X-DBL-P-1Y(2Y)/2X-?; 1X-DBL-1Y-2Z/2Y-?;
1X-2Y-2X-?; 1M-2m-2M-?; 1M-DBL-2M-?; 1X-P-2X-DBL/P-?; 1X-P-1Y-2Z/2Y-?. There is overlap with 2N scrambling, and lots to discuss, but the principle of distinguishing “to play” bids from competitive bids, and competitive bids from invitational bids, could apply.
Oct. 29, 2013
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree about Nagy-Kokish tries, and prefer them, but as N, playing HSGTs, I think I would've treated as the ‘need help’ suit (but if playing HSGTs, I prefer HCP evaluations). Also, as S, I agree with Heitzman's evaluation.
Sept. 13, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gotcha as to hand #1 reflecting R's failure to call 4 over 4; my failure to follow the syntax.

I hoped to say that discussion is difficult here without more structure in place. Also, we all tend to adopt some shorthand thinking, leaving out the middle steps. Re: your #2, were you asking what call after 1-1/1-3N or after 1-1/1-3N/4?

Edit: I suppose there is also the question whether the 3N = 15-17 balanced, where 12-14ish would bid 4thSF then NT. Many gaps.
Sept. 6, 2013
Scott Needham edited this comment Sept. 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Methods matter: 4thSF? Walsh? I'd like to be playing XYZ; continuations will differ; after O's support, if given, with your second hand, 3N and O will bid again. Would R bid this way with 3-3-4-3 or 3-2-4-4? Is 4 a slam inv opposite a min game force (apparently not if given hand 2; for me it would be)?. Unfortunately, lots of possibilities and little info as to methods, so necessarily a vague situation. But:

Aside from the point that you've now changed your assessment of P's hand (to which I was responding), then I personally would avoid 3NT in the first instance and bid the concentration b/c I'd expect some 4-(3-1)-5, 4-(2-1)-6, or 4-2-2-5 (failure, noted above to bid NT), so with all those primes I'd want to see whether I get the raise. O should invite slam opposite any responding minimum game force, and if R holds your second hand, we're still odds on for 6N. I think your first hand is a good candidate for the 3N rebid, softish with H cards; many would bid 3N with your 2nd hand, and I still think 4N is appropriate.

Sept. 6, 2013
Scott Needham edited this comment Sept. 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why didn't I call 4N insted of 4 just in case paartner holds xx KJxx AKxxx Kx?
Sept. 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What action if the major holdings were reversed?
Aug. 30, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What is your favorite mystery sub-genre (noir/private eye, police procedural, whodunnit, courtroom, historical, etc);

Who is your favorite mystery author;

Who is your favorite protagonist's sidekick?

Also, from reading all of the comments onsite regarding complex ethical issues, it seems to me that the bridge legal structure would benefit most from establishing some firm meta-rules, such as your recent insistence that ‘those who create the problem should bear the burden’, in order to constrain interpretation. What do you think?
Aug. 23, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top