Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Will Roper
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would firstly suggest you change the title to play 4

My cardplay is somewhat simplistic so I am winning, spades and taking the ruffing hook. The deceptive duck is interesting but a diamond switch must be clear to East
Jan. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hey, thanks for the hands and hope you are keeping well.

Regarding the hands I remember watching the first one on vugraph:

Declarer 1: Got the switch and squeezed correctly for +400.
Declarer 2: Got the continuation. Drew some trumps and played the K and to the 8. West could now have beaten the simple squeeze but threw both of their spades away (oops).

The second hand is a trouble sometimes with psyches. This one is one of the more common ones and is partially why I changed my multi defence from X = 13-15 to X = T/O of .

On this board it works nicely as when it comes back to you, you must have:
a) T/O of
b) Strong hand

Thus double of 2 cannot be T/O.

Out of curiosity (probably more of a management question). How does/did someone like Lauritz, Stephen Kennedy or even myself get our articles in the featured section?
Jan. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was once told GF stood for something other than Game Force. I didn't believe them…
Jan. 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with your assessment mostly. Over 5 I might have bid 6. Grand is not so far away as you say opposite a presumed monster and it is more helpful than 5 perhaps?

I think your 5 bid almost sums up your view on the hand. You were uncertain where you stood :-)

From a personal perspective, I have given my views above. My (very) limited experience tells me it is better to overstate slightly then follow up with lots of negatives hence 4 rather than 4. Much like upgrading to a NT (and yes=boringly normal for me too) I think I can control following auctions much better this way.
Jan. 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems Kit and I posted relatively similar things at the same time. (So much for my original comment :( )

@Robert: It is subjective as we are into partnership understandings and player preferences. Some people on this thread think 1NT = fine, ok, and terrible. The definition of subjective.

People whip K&R out (which is debatable when evaluating NTs anyway) as a proof/shield and seem to forget that most partnerships don't evaluate via K&R. If your partner knows when you sit down that you are ranking this hand as worth 12.5 = great. If they don't then it is probably worth more. Especially MP pairs.

@Bruce: The flaw in this wonderful idea is you are now into muddy waters. The whole purpose of a splinter is to evaluate your hand opposite. I.e

4/4 = Middling+ hand that doesn't want to commit past 4
4 = Terrible hand. Club wastage and not working well opposite SPL
Other = Great hand. Lets go partner

Your concept by comparison:

SPL hand: “Please evaluate your hand opposite a SPL”
Us: “I have a cue-bid in this suit”
SPL hand: “What?”
Jan. 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Everything has generally been said. The only point I would raise is that I am not certain North should bid 4 over 4.

Yes, you are minimum for your original 1NT (some are saying sub-minimum and that is subjective).

However, your hand has grown in value hugely after the SPL. You have almost minimal wastage and a 5th trump. Qx opposite 4 looks good also. A 4 bid is more of a hand like:

KQxx
Kxx
Qx
KQxx

I personally think the actual North hand is worth at least one move (4) but I might be bonkers.

Disclaimer: I have had quite a lot of experience in evaluating “sub-minimum” 1NT openings…. Not sure if this is a good or bad thing.
Jan. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you need to define your 3NT bid further. I am not saying it is wrong. My understanding of this agreement is:

- 3NT is unsuitable for opening 1NT so should be at least 5224 and probably 5134
- Denies 4cards in the other major
- Indicate shortage in partners suit.

So probable shapes are 5(21)5, 5314 and perhaps 5224. Thus 4 is definitely natural for me and setting
Jan. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I.e as per or similar to

P-(1)-P-(2)-2.

Yes this makes some sense. Also quite like the 3055 option people are proposing.
Jan. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Both the example hands given would be opening hands for a lot of people. Myself included.

@Peg: My view on it is a pure T/O is 4144 etc. Offensive values might include some off-shape hands. Axxxx, x, Axxxx, xx for example where you don't want to bid 4 and go for a random penalty when 4 drifted 1 off.
Jan. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
6 is a push regardless. However, it is much easier to bid if East opens…..
Dec. 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play system here so am not the person to ask. Would take 4 as SPL self agreeing diamonds without agreement.
Dec. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Dennis,

I recall playing against you in London a couple of years ago (playing with Mini and Copey?) as you were somewhat bemused to find Flannery on this side of the Atlantic. Any plans to return to the UK?

What do you think juniors who have been around for a while need to do in order to make the successful transition to the top level of the game?

Finally, what is your favourite/most amusing story from your junior days?

Thanks for taking the time out to answer our questions. It is much appreciated!
Dec. 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is this some sort of obscure poll to find out how many English bridge immigrants are on an American website?
Dec. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Although it doesn't change my decision it might be worth citing your accepting ranges Frances. For example, my game jumping is quite light so I always play an invite-accept as a super max. I.e won't be an average 16 count.
Dec. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can envisage a lot of minimal non-suitable hands where 3NT is easy for 9+ tricks. At MP I might consider inviting but I try to avoid it at teams.

This hand is just super suitable for game.
Dec. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Add 1 more to the guilty suspects
Dec. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well done Abi and good luck!
Dec. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a matter of agreement, hence the division. I have seen lots of IMPs fly around on this.

My personal approach to this in a pick-up partnership is to avoid bidding 4 if I have any serious slam intention.

My partnership agreements on this auction of relevance are as follows:
1-2
2-3
4-4

3 = 5-5. Could be less if conc values but mostly bid 2N with 5-4/6-4
4 = Strong slam-try in and little/no preference. With any preference would bid 3.

Both of these mean 4 for me is sensible as a cue.
Nov. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some thoughts, one or two of which may even be serious:

1) You shouldn't overcompete for partscores. Image of MGB telling Sasha that “These guys don't seem to make many contracts, its time for the red card.”

2) IJS might solve some of these issues. 1-2 is INV then this auction makes some sense as weak. In poker terminology when you bid 1-(P)-1 with 6+; weak/GF they would call this a polarised range which makes subsequent actions much easier (imagine LHO now bids 2 back to you).

3) The second hand I would want to double but then what is partner meant to do with 4-3? This is the trap you put yourself in when you don't Support Double or (as Paul alludes to above) don't double on minimal but suitable balanced hands with 4-3.

4) If I double then I am not ending up in a 4-1 fit. Surely you will correct 2 to 3 which should be 7cards+.

5) Can your partner support via a 2 bid with 3 and suitable hands?

6) In the words of a former partner:

“Support doubles - A and B play them, our coach seems to have no problem, its excellent LAW wise, the number of times it would be useful in the part score battle.”

He might have had a point, crazy as that sounds.
Nov. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not a bridge lawyer or someone who likes digging within the laws. However, from the white book 2017:

Law 8 - End of Round
1. In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players.

My interpretation: For a teams game, the round ends when you sit down to play the next set.

LAW 63 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE
A revoke becomes established:
4. when agreement is established (as per Law 69A) to an opponent’s claim or concession; the offending side having raised no objection to it before the end of the round, or before making a call on a subsequent board.

My interpretation: This is somewhat poorly worded but the intent seems clear. If there is an accepted claim then the revoke can become established before the end of the round.

Thus I think the current/new rules do cover this. Even without this I definitely would rule it back to making.
Nov. 26, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top