Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Steve White
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Who knows? It was over 6 months ago. I think I would bid 3H, and suspect it was not a success since if it were a success I probably would not have asked here.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, North reopened with a double. Post corrected. Thanks.
Feb. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interestingly, there was a simultaneous BCD pairs playing the same hands. It's harder to judge what interference occurred, except the one table where N-S played 1NT.

E-W played 2 four times, three of those doubled, one of those escaping for down 1.

N-S played 3 and 3 once each, almost certainly after interference even though in BCD some pairs might butcher an uncontested NT-based auction.

One N-S played 2NT, could happen with no interference and no one doing anything egregious.

Twice N-S played 3NT. Interference or just bad bidding? I don't know.
Feb. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We had that misfortune. South passed (perhaps a double would be negative, I don't know), North reopened with a double* and South converted.

(Post corrected; orignally said reopened with a pass. Sorry)
Feb. 10
Steve White edited this comment Feb. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Alas, our 2S contract was the only one which was doubled.
Feb. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So that's why you didn't double 2C. I remembered that agreement for redoubles after our 1NT opener, and it came up that same session, but I would not have expected it to apply here especially after a 1C opening.

Interestingly, twice N/S played 1NT X, making (one of those two times making 2).
Feb. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, 3D would surely be forcing, but that's consuming a heck of a lot of space if you have a moderate heart suit.

As two others (at the moment) have suggested, pass should be forcing. I did think pass would be forcing, but thought it would be more helpful to show the suit. Looks like I was wrong, and 2H nonforcing now makes more sense to me.
Jan. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Correct, Vanessa. Sorry about that.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This was a club Swiss. While I, North, am very good for roughly 1600 master points, (and West would have a good idea of my ability), I don't think South knew either of us. Also, in fact we were a pickup pair; South a last-minute fill in, who had made several errors in earlier matches. East knew we were a pickup pair with a fill-in, probably nothing about South's ability level.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve Myerson: I agree with what you said west did, except that west did not give any misinformation. West's only explanation was that they do not play Smolen, and that was accurate.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They play Puppet. The convention card was marked properly.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For what it's worth, the bidding poll (with no hint of UI in the poll) is now 10 for 2H, 25 for pass. https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-g49jmq0cin/?cj=888083#c888083
Dec. 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good commentary Frances, but not addressing the actual hesitation. The break in tempo was over the 1D bid, not before the double. The double was in normal tempo. Not fast, but not slow either.

The question did not arise, but if partner had acted over 1D, there's no doubt over what any actions would have meant, by agreement. Double takeout, 2D Michaels, 1NT natural 15-18.
Dec. 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem with choice 4, as I see it, is that sometime you are forced to bid again, as I was on the actual auction. In that case some order of the majors must be include 4-4. To me, there should be some order where partner surely is showing 5 of one, 4 of the other. With me, that would be 1H then 2S (showing 5 hearts). If 1H then 2S could be 4-4 weak, and 1S then 2H might also be 4-4, just not so weak, then no order of showing both suits promises 5 in either.

Living with complete length ambiguity through 2 rounds may be a necessary evil, but I hope not.
July 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree. Don’t like them, for the vulnerability confusion
June 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4C. Must have diamond support, otherwise would bid 3NT. This also shows strong club values.
Aug. 27, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4H. Would have bid 4C over the double
Aug. 27, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top