Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Winston Chang
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 15 16 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
NS normally play 6 of a new suit as a 3rd round control ask (except if the trump Q is specifically asked and denied) – is it clear that in this auction 6 should/must be a NF choice of slams?
May 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's not available on this sequence. Over 1NT - (2), 3 would be inv+ in .
May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, something like 2-4 hcp and 6 spades
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, tried to avoid making multiple polls and made this answering scheme too complicated. Bid 2nt and pass 3 = pass in the poll. Pass 2 = 7 in the poll (although maybe I should have assigned it to 5).
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, he can pass
April 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He can have 4; with 5+ he would have bid 2 instead of 2
April 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
NS aren't playing Flannery.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks – Helgemo and his counterpart both doubled with this hand, although in that case the opener had bid 1, not 1. The double turned out necessary to prevent a part score swing, so I was wondering if the double should have reasonably been made over 1 here.
March 22
Winston Chang edited this comment March 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, I can see this now but we did not have the agreement firmly in place.
March 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's not always a matter of hiding agreements –

At the Chicago NABC a few years ago, an alert (I believe delayed, made before the lead) was made at my table based on an understanding made in a noncompetitive situation – it was some kind of splinter. The alerter's partner (declarer) agreed that there was such an agreement in a noncompetitive auction, but did not intend it that way in a competitive auction, but did not correct (thinking that maybe he made a mistake).

Director ruled against the alerting side on this point, saying that even though there had been a relevant agreement in a noncompetitive auction, the alerting side had no agreement in the competitive auction and should not have alerted (or partner should have corrected to say “no agreement”). When asked, director specifically said that it was most appropriate to act on the basis that there was no agreement.

As a result of that ruling, since then, I have said “no agreement” unless a particular sequence has been addressed in discussion (either through a specific or general rule) – this happens mostly in competitive auctions.
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North was the pro, and per Peg the hesitation was before 2.
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's a little hard to tell. The client has played in 10-12 regionals a year, and the pro has been on the client's team for a few years, but may actually have been playing with another pro partner for much of this time, with the client often partnering a 3rd pro or sitting out half the match. So it's possible this particular partnership is more like a “frequent” than an “established” partnership.
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is enough identifying info in the description to identify that North is the pro.
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations!
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of my partners was apparently taught the same thing by a local club director (that BIT followed by bid is no problemo). In a different club game, I made a BIT and was told by opponents that I broke tempo, but “it was okay since I bid.” I would not be surprised if this misconception is rampant (at least in my neck of the woods).
March 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think there they are talking about the cue of the responder's suit, not the opener's. They clearly treat a cuebid of opener's suit as showing the other two suits.
Feb. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
FWIW, in Root-Pavlicek (p.147) in the “Michaels Cue-Bid” section, “Further Applications” subsection, they describe (1) - P - (1) - 2 as showing hearts and diamonds. So at least there is one bidding conventions book out there that labels this use of 2 as “Michaels” and assigns it a meaning of the other two suits, rather than majors.
Feb. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I added those after he and Michael made their comments.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see – so with this treatment, as opposed to 2-2-3M showing a solid (or semi-solid) suit, does 2-2-2M-3-3M show NF and 2-2-2M--3M show the solid/semi-solid suit? (Assume no Kokish.)
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks. Then 2-2-3-3 becomes a checkback for 4-card major? How would this work after 2-2-3?
Feb. 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 15 16 17
.

Bottom Home Top