Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Scott Needham
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
FBOW, code and tax law are two things I have long ago decided to ignore. Can someone please tell me whether, on the auction 1M-3N, the 12 HCP 5M-3-3-2 is more likely to make 4M or 3NT opposite a 13 HCP 4-3-3-3M? My ill-defined intuition is that 4M makes more often with min opposite min (or perhaps “makes more often than the combined results across all ranges”), 3N being more likely as the combined HCP rise. Those weak doubletons have to matter.
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AKQxx AQxxx xx x? Seriously?
AKQxx AKQx xx xx?
AKQxx AKQx xxx x?

These all look like respectable “standard” jump shifts to me, and some would differ on the first.
March 25
Scott Needham edited this comment March 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Related questions: What is the weakest 5-5 that opens 2C? 5-4-3-1? 5-4-2-2?
March 25
Scott Needham edited this comment March 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ummmmm, I think we call this Birthright?
March 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Granted, poor choice of words: No short. Clearly, though, S's hand is better for play in than in if this is a FPS and N passes. How do you play the pass by N? Does it suggest 5 with clear preference for and Double with more general defense?
March 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Intended as a value bid, constructive raise. 4 would've shown shortness.
March 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, I have miscounted the list. Corrected to “8.”
March 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Q64 9 J984 AQ843: I'm with AM and ED: As opener, I'd like to know about the stiff if I held AKxx xxx AKxx Kx. Or KJxx xxx AKQx Kx. Or any other mitt with very poor .Why not show it? Dang opps always lead the bust suit anyway.
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When developing this structure with a former partner, we recognized that 4x3 15 counts are a liability for any of our 3-level calls, all of which were picture bids. So we didn't open those hands 1N. After running a bunch of layouts, we discovered that very often the 3M responding hands, which were nominally GF, can't play game for lack of fit or control-rich holdings, so we decided that 4 would mean “crappy opposite a min range 3M, POC to the 5cd minor unless you hold extras,” while 4 would be GF, but not wanting to play 3N or 4OM, and responder's subsequent 4M or 4OM flagged the 5cd suit. After 1N-3, we played 3 better than 4.
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What's the problem with keeping XYN in place? You still may want to get out in 2 or 3; the 2 relay maintains its meaning; the 2 and 3-level calls will not come up if openers are 11s, but so what?
March 9
Scott Needham edited this comment March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Calling all curmudgeons: Is it correct to say “regardless of whether” or “regardless whether”?
March 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Charles: The suggested substitution was “If one chooses to use ”whether“ one should not also use ”or not"?
March 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whether one chooses to use “whether” – see, now there's a perfectly good spot to use “if” – one should not also use “or not.” I'm begging. One of my irritants, and as a litigator I had to hear and especially read this usage ALL THE TIME.
March 7
Scott Needham edited this comment March 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like it as POC, the 5+-5+ very weak hand that didn't want to pass 1. XYZ 2 for the GF, non-RFR hands.
March 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm beginning to suspect that the rationale for this treatment is that it makes life easier on partner to determine whether the lead is from 3 or 5. I don't see the problem, and would rather use Marshall Miles' suggestion (probably others' too) that low from odd allows the next card in the (5cd) suit to be unambiguously suit preference.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've limited the question to suit contracts.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
it always adds to 15.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
By coincidence, I just read an article “Competing Over Two Spades” in the new TBW. The author proposes that Advancer's X indicates 4cd , after which Intervenor's 3/4 are to play, while 2N (asking for a minor) followed by 3 is invitational. With 3cd , Intervenor bids a 5cd minor or 2N, asking; 2N then 3N is natural with only one stopper.
Feb. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some of my Bigers raised the objection that this forces them to determine who is who. Sometimes obvious, sometimes not, I suppose.
Feb. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Technically, correct. Luckily, I am the manager.
Feb. 5
.

Bottom Home Top