Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Scott Needham
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3D: They always lead a trump, so go low on the cross-ruffing hand types. If partner is max, maybe you make game.
April 18, 2013
Scott Needham edited this comment April 18, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“True, but you have to take over. Partner will place you with a good hand, with five spades and four clubs, not the other way around, and will find slam evaluation very difficult.”

XYZ will define the 4-5 vs 5-4 in most auctions, won't it?
April 18, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
.
April 9, 2013
Scott Needham edited this comment April 9, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
None of you are: Actual players did.
April 9, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
These were the arguments I observed after the resulting started. But you're right, I should've added the obvious third, so I will now.
April 9, 2013
Scott Needham edited this comment April 9, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This E doesn't believe in “long major, sparse values” negative doubles.
April 9, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
These were the arguments I observed after the resulting started. Refrain was something like ‘since I’m down anyway you cut it, what are chances of opp holding 4 also holding the (hopefully only) long ?'
April 9, 2013
Scott Needham edited this comment April 9, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Remind me to talk about forcing pass agreements before San Diego–that partner is conservative in their use, and speculative about this kind of 3N.
March 10, 2013
Scott Needham edited this comment March 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You'll have more fun with Flannery….
March 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3D is the standard K-Sish call.
March 5, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I just like reliably to have 2 quicks.
March 3, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Declarer inadvertently played 3 rounds of trumps, and said ‘that was really stupid’ as he did. Yes, that is the (practical analysis) flaw in my example, which I should've changed for the article, maybe giving declarer another dummy entry. Mr. Cohen has parsed that aspect admirably.

I hoped everyone would ignore the elephant in the room, and offer preferred meanings of partner's second discard and the 4: Another choice-of-presentation failure; perhaps a poll would've been better. Sigh….
March 1, 2013
Scott Needham edited this comment March 1, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Welcome to Acol, Yuan.

Steven, I had to chuckle: I have a Brit friend with whom I play a WNT 2/1 card, who is constantly informing me as to Acol sequences. I have to say, to most Americans, a system with so many ways to say “partner, I'm just not sure I like my hand” seems very – well – foreign.

This is why I belatedly asked about the 3 call – if I had known it could be “probing” force, I'd have concluded I needed to make some call other than 4. Not sure I would've found 5 ATT – probably would've just gone keycards – but it seems right.
Feb. 28, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Will +50 be good enough? or do we need +100 or +110? This is the kind of prebalancing 1NTF auction that makes me want to stretch a bit. If I don't take a call – and I think 3 would claim a better hand – I risk that partner will not hold 4 and will not balance. If I double, I risk that partner will take me for a GF 5-4 b/c W passed originally. I hope we have the agreement that with the GF hand I would call 2, so I double. If opps are the only prebalancers in the room, it's either a top or a bottom, and I like to bet on our defense.

EDIT: Thinking too much: Would I like to have a Lebish/Good-Bad agreement here? Hm-m-m-m-m, why yes, yes I think I would….. Now, with , I double, with I bid 'em, with a better 1D hand I bid 3, and with this one I bid 2N–>3 then 3. WE ROCK.
Feb. 28, 2013
Scott Needham edited this comment Feb. 28, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my world, partner denies as much as QTx, so will have to have the same hand to make 3N that will give a shot at 5C: red As. 4 might be the spot, but I'm trying with 3 to see whether there's a Qxx lurking.
Feb. 27, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm betting partner is 4-1-4-4, so going low.
Feb. 27, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think he meant 1S-1N/2C-3D, but 1M-1N/2D-4C would seem to be undefined.
Feb. 27, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Similar to Heitzman: I would prefer delaybensohl in this position, so wouldn't seek to penalize until their suit was named. XX directly would be screaming “weak” as part of whatever runouts We use, in case 4th hand, the dastard, would be positioned to pass; X after the suit is named would be penalty.
Feb. 27, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMO, it simplifies the three level if the IJS is always short in partner's major. With a 2-3-6-2, go through 1NTF and rebid 2N–keeping the major in focus. Also, with a side 4-carder, R might do better to go through 1NTF: We are not likely to lose Our 4-4 side fit when partner is strong enough to go forward over 3mIJS, but We might lose a game that _depends_ on the fit when one or both of Us is on the cusp.

If I could get anyone around here to bite, I'd prefer IJS with 1M-3M mixed and 1M-2C either C or inv+ raise, and 1M-2N natch. Sigh….
Feb. 27, 2013
Scott Needham edited this comment Feb. 28, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner opens 1. Playing as you describe, with 1NTF, would you treat x Qxx AQTxxx Kxx differently than xx Qxx AQTxxx Kx? (I'm assuming these are both IJS hand-types; if not, knock off a HCP.)
Feb. 26, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top