Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Will Roper
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What do you bid John?
Feb. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First time for everything ;-)

Some people I can imagine play 2 over FSF as nebulous (2524 or 3514; minimum) so whilst raising 1-1-2 on 3 is probably decisive in favour of 2 = 2, the lack of it does not necessarily imply the negative inference.
Feb. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think 2 is pretty standard in the modern game. MGB used to drill this sequence into us as juniors.

It also somewhat depends on whether you raise 1-1-2 with 3514; 11-14.
Feb. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not convinced that you have lost out here. Not in regard to your “squeezing skills” at any rate.

Imagine East ducks the Q. Your following line has to be 4 ditching a and lead a small . Anything else I think will see the contract fail. West if competent will duck the A and now you face a guess to who has the J. Your line will go 2 down I think if you guess wrong and make if you are right.

So if you assume perfect defence from opponents and you rule 50% of each that is an aggregate of -9IMPs.

A more interesting area is whether the play should be changed.
Feb. 28, 2018
Will Roper edited this comment Feb. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I personally wouldn't rule so 3NT-1, but understand that it is a problem spot. Most of my reasons have been expressed above so I won't repeat them. The only small point worth adding is whilst North could have 2Aces that would give him something like Axxxx, Ax, Qxxx, xx. I don't think this is very likely as a XX (then 3NT).

From a bridge perspective, what do people think of West's double of 2? I personally wouldn't, as my style over Intermediate 2s is conservative unless I have shortage in their suit. Also can West ever foresee this situation and return a low diamond?
Feb. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with your moral. For me, I like to have agreements in these spots only if I am in a v reg partnership and also that have symmetry to other sequences. Hence the 1NT interference structure as it is essentially remembering one method for 2 spots rather than two. We actually apply Rubensohl (or Transfer Leb) all over the place. I.e we know one method and apply it to a lot of situations. This just happens to be one of them. It may not be completely optimal but we don't forget which is more important to me.
Feb. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Somewhat depends on the hand but there is a preference to 2M as partner will read it better. If I have doubleton in their suit I quite like 2oM though sometimes
Feb. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4 over 2? Probably the same as what you play over a weak 2 opening…

My partnership agreement is to treat this spot like 1NT-(2) so for us 4 = minors ST, 4NT = minors no ST. We also play Rubensohl etc.

Ftr I have never been convinced by the X/Pass = Points or lack of them. Seems like a very strong clubby thing to do.

Latter part of the auction you are somewhat fixed it seems
Feb. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can fully understand and emphasise with this. Hand records do not supercede an events integrity.
Feb. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are correct Paul. I forgot about the 3 = min and that just indicates my bias towards disallowing 4.

These hands might be more reasonable depending on your overcalling style:
Qxxxxx, AQJx, xxx, -
Qxxxxxx, AQJx, xx, -

I still think a control heavy hand say:
Qxxxxx, Axxx, Axx, - or Qxxxxxx, Axx, Axx, -
would jump to slam over 5 depending on their style again.

I think the simplest conclusion is that this 3-3 method is not optimal…..
Feb. 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Michael: 3 in their agreed methods is far more descriptive and leaves more space. Assuming partner bids 3NT most days, maybe now he might jump 5 (doubt it, but it is an option).
Feb. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Paul: I don't think South will ever move over 5 as it might look (depending on their style) that partner is missing a cue. Something like Qxxxxx, AQJ, QJxx,- or Qxxxxx, AQx, QJx, A
Feb. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1:30:45 should be about right. Meaning of 3 is definitely on their CC as I remember being confused by this auction at the Europeans in 2016 and checking.
Feb. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I first looked at this, I thought it was an automatic ruling.

On reflection it is not so clear-cut (probably still a ruling but a split score seemed fair). North knows South has 15+ roughly for 3 (GF with 4 opposite an aggressive overcall). And even on the layout hand where partner has a huge club wastage slam has play. Partner can have some flat 16s where grand is cold. Plus the 5 level is rarely in jeopardy.

There is also the fact that Zimmermann is a slow player. In previous tournaments, you can often hear Multon saying speed up constantly. Multon could probably argue that there was no break in tempo.

From experience with screens, hesitations cause all kinds of UI problems. This auction is NOT completely 1-way traffic yet. Imagine West here picks up an interesting hand and takes 2minutes before passing over 4. North with a void cannot tell who was thinking. Probably partner, maybe Duboin.

All in all a “boring” ruling is actually pretty interesting.
Feb. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is also in the youtube video….
Feb. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
not to mention the 2 bid by W on B2
Feb. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the hands Simon. Enjoyed them and the accompanying commentary.

On the first hand, you should definitely imo return a spade as it clears up the position to partner. I think he probably should cash AQ but am not certain that it will change the outcome. I also prefer 3 to 2 but otherwise cannot really see either of you competing more in the bidding.

On the second hand, I think the club at T2 is pretty standard given the bidding. I really don't know what South or West are up to here. West's most realistic chance is to hope for 4, 1, 3 and has burned his potentially only entry (the J) to take a marked failing finesse. South in the bidding seems to have been a bit over-zealous with his DBL card.
Feb. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“We haven't played together in two years….”
Feb. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would wager on Shahzaad guessing correctly. But you never know.
Feb. 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
JDonn: if it makes you feel better one of our partnership strongly agrees with you and the other one strongly disagrees you :-)
Jan. 30, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top