Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Scott Needham
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Somewhat – but I was referring to the convolution in thought processes required in this kind of situation, not to your explanation. TY again.
Aug. 23, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
TY for this – I just want to take this opportunity to say, with all sincerity, that it is anything but clear. :-& Now I just have to figure out how to generate a broader rule.
Aug. 23, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Case 2: 3D is inv. Is 3H prima facie a slam try? Can it be a HSGT? If the first, “imagine screens” would suggest 4H, unless our FJ agreements allowed QJTxx, then 4D; if the second, 4S. I just know I'm wrong about this….

EDIT: Phil has 3H right, I think, as general inv: 3S if the second.
Aug. 23, 2012
Scott Needham edited this comment Aug. 23, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I want to be clear: I think anything but pass is bad bridge on this hand. What I don't get is why does the failure to alert and, by extension, I suppose, the set of hands P may hold (KQxx xx Qxxx Qxx – yes, it has happened) make 4S more attractive?
Aug. 23, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Stating what I thought was obvious, but apparently isn't to all: In Case 3, the failure to alert makes it more likely a bid of 4? will be successful because partner can have many hands where he would have bid 4? himself had he known what your bid meant.”

Gonna have to chew on this for a while….Now you're saying that “imagine screens” isn't enough? that is, you seem to be saying that basing my future behavior on the (I thought mandated) assumption that P has correctly alerted won't fly, that the mere failure to alert requires me to bar myself? and that this is because there is a set of actions that P may have taken if s/he did alert (based on the set of hands s/he might possibly hold)?
Phrased another way, you seem to be saying that I am barred b/c P is never entitled to know either (1) that I have a Drury call or (2) that I have S at all; yet another way: that I am barred b/c I can take no action that might awaken P to the failure to alert? That's a possible rule, I suppose, but it seems very much irrelevant at this point in this auction.

All I know from 1S is that P made that call, and that it presumptively reflects whatever understandings we may have re: 3rd seat w/w 1M openers and P's failure to open 2S or 3S or 4S – why am I not entitled to conduct the auction as if P had a 3rd seat w/w 1S sub-min opener, which is what I would've thought had the Drury call been alerted?

My head hurts, and I don't mind admitting to honest bewilderment. For some time now, I've been trying to work out a set of rules that I can use to guide myself in the various different kinds of UI situations, and it looks as if one of them is toast.

Apologies for the length of this response….
Aug. 23, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Right, assume P alerted–but w/r, is 4S a LA and do I need to make my choice of call based upon that criterion (E.g., hm-m-m-m, yes 4S might be in the mix, but is it MORE logical that P?)? or is this a case for application of the other (devastatingly practical?) rubric I've been hearing a lot lately, “make the call you want to/were going to make and let the Director sort it out”? IOW, if I have to try to choose the action that is dictated by what a committee might eventually rule, it seems like I'm acting like judge and jury rather than a bridge player.
Aug. 23, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just had a thread on BBO about these Baze seqs, concluding that 3N in this situation should be spread-out values (less interested in any stiff) with relatively (?) poor M and 4M = spread-out with relatively good M.

Treatment? or conventional and therefore alertable?
Aug. 23, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have concluded that I am an ethical minefield. Not b/c I don't want to play “pure,” but b/c I most often don't understand what behavior is compelled by the laws in a given situation.

Take the last example. OK, as a rule of thumb, what I've been trying to do (after a lot of puzzling over advice and appeals books) is “pretend there are screens.” So: I assume partner alerted his screenmate, then chose to pass, implying a poor hand. Why can I not call 4S? It would not be a particularly good call IMHO, but rolling the dice on -2? What if we needed a board right then, calling for swingy tactics? What if they were red and we were not?

How about this one: They are red, we are white, and I DON'T bid 4S b/c partner's failure to alert suggests we do not have a C fit, making me less sanguine re: the sac? Ethical problem (of course, not one likely to come to light)?
Aug. 23, 2012
Scott Needham edited this comment Aug. 23, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Patterning-out/asking just in case P holds weak S. Thinking there is a real possibility of a C slam; recognizing some risk in bidding 4C over 3N (identifies pattern-out and S short; P can bid according to his/her S quality): might have to play 4N, and I always go down in 4N. Oh, wait, I've successfully transferred the declaration….
Aug. 20, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
E
Aug. 12, 2012
Scott Needham edited this comment Aug. 12, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
NEWS – Director!

Too bad you're not in the news business….
Aug. 7, 2012
Scott Needham edited this comment Aug. 7, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry Crane: Jesus saves, I defend.

Bob Hamman: Any slam that makes is a good slam.

Bobby Wolff: Passing can be dangerous.

Jan Janitschke: Where's the hand you held during the auction?
Aug. 5, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Non-sequiter.
July 25, 2012
Scott Needham edited this comment July 28, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Explaining my “other” vote: Most often the direct jump is defined as “recovering the strong jump shift.” Then, it seems to me, you need to decide what that means just as you would need to define a SJS: (a) what suit quality?, (b) what strength? or © what possible combinations of the two, i.e. AQ KT98765 A Kxx. 2DGF then a jump could/should be lesser HCP, same type of suit quality. 2DGF then simple rebid could/should look like the suit in ©, but lesser HCP. And if you adopt the 2C-then-self-splinter GF+ sequence mentioned in response to your BBO thread, the direct 3H and the 2D-then-jump-in-H alternatives can be defined as “no short.” Also, a recent interpretive problem I encountered: After O's 1N rebid, should some hands that would've been minimally SI after O's unlimited/unbalanced 1S rebid just bid game, meaning the lower limit for SI is automatically raised?

EDIT: Noticed I didn't really answer the question. The 3M jump to me is a Very Good Suit, defined as at least 5 winners and at most one loser opposite a small stiff, with normal breaks; it is at least a non-min with controls, like xx AQJTxx Axx Kx. Solid suit is 1X-1Y/1Z-3N. Hands with shortness use the 1X-1Y/1Z-2C/2D-jump self-splinter. So the bid is descriptive, GF and inv to slam if partner likes the info.
July 24, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What they said. As I like to play (Lawrence style 1D-2C GF version), 2S shows shape. thus encourages a whit–no 4thSF in these auctions. Then the failure to bid 3N over 3C implies a stiff or another K; but after 4H, W has nothing (else? we cuing here?)to cue, so should call 5C. E should bid 3N = 15-17 bal at the 2nd turn: end of story.
July 10, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“While it is true that West has a marginal (or worse) hand for 2H, s/he has a great hand for 4D (an extra trump, the stiff S).”– Support points vs. HCP….This is an area of bidding theory that I'd like to see discussed; it is similar to the situation in which responder, holding 10 HCP and a stiff, with 3 cards in partner's major, must decide whether to bid the 5-card minor in a 2/1 GF, and then support the major with a minimum rebid (usually a picture 4M). W has only 8 HCP, but a pretty good 11 support points for Ds (that only gets better when E bids 3C): So, is 2H really an overbid here?
June 25, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Extras” = either shape or values, s/he doesn't hold a WNT. I'd be looking for 5-5 minors concentrated good minimum or 5-4 minors with a bit more.

I understand your reaction to the term “preference” – my bad for using what is really a defined term inappropriately. What I think I am saying is that W's 4D will sound like a “it's our hand let's play here” bid. Wish there was a snappy term for that….

Also, resulting on the basis of the HA :D, 3S looks likely -3 at both not, so what I'd really like to do is whack 3S….
June 25, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
W: In a competitive auction, E has shown extras and, with the 3S call, W must realize that 4D will sound like a preference, to play with some values, when W really has a very good hand for the bidding. 5D seems justified.

And, since you asked about the site: I have been delinquent in saying that the move to Chrome has really been a most excellent upgrade – your monkeys deserve some real credit.
June 24, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hardy called them “Extended Bergen” in his book, and described the 3C response as “Minimum raise with four card support….” at page 121. He's describing “EB” not relating his own stuff.
June 20, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
http://www.cincybridge.com/Lessons/20100713_Count_to_Beat_Game.pdf

Max Hardy, _Advanced Bridge Bidding for the 21st Century_, 121-27

Basically, adds 4C = swiss, 4D = const 5-cd raise, jump to other major = concealed splinter
June 20, 2012
.

Bottom Home Top