Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Amnon Harel
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 23 24 25 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. That's a 1H opening, not a weak two.
2. This hand does not pass the criteria given to EW. Perhaps the illegal, misleading explanation cause this table's result to differ from the others?
3. It true that asking for explanation about an *unalerted bid* is often more problematic than for an alerted bid. But not always, in some clubs players regularly get away with not alerting when they should (perhaps even as a legitimate policy to welcome newcomers). Is this one of them? Do the opponents *know* that it is not?
4. On this action, East has his double, especially in matchpoints.

Trying to pin the loss that is likely due to either one of your two mistakes (1 & 2) on the opponents for-all-you-know 100% fair and honest actions is distasteful. Sometimes this kind of posts is often followed with the real reason you think they are cheats, from past observations. Maybe this was another such misrepresentation. Isn't it nice to receive the benefit of the doubt?
March 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
+1 for Richard's 2nd sentence :-)
March 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A) it's good to have agreements that are playable regardless of the meaning of the double. This is one of the easiest cases for it, as “ignore with dbl=Stayman” is decent.
B) Asking is better than assuming
C) Even better then asking about their agreement, is to ask whether they have one. I've been doing it for a few years. About half the opponents (a) notice that I didn't ask them what the agreement is, and (b) refrain from airing their guesses.
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The best game.
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> 3NT here should be choice of games;
Or a slam try in hearts (e.g. Serious 3NT, Courtesy 3NT, spade shortness)
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I only have a simple rule for one of your many sequences: when we've already entered the bidding, this is not your first bid in the auction, and righty bid 2//, 2NT by you is Good/Bad 2NT. This agreement is more general and thus has lower precedence than Lebensohl/Rubensohl when that applies.
March 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> North thinks South has described his hand with the 3♠ call, and North has placed the contract

What description do you assume here? If it's a GF that does not set spades as trumps, 4 is somewhat encouraging, and on some other hand, 5 could be a cue bid.

Here, it doesn't matter, as North is blessed with the A&K. So he can rule out a cue bid, has a legitimate reason to doubt his earlier interpretation and not to bid 5 after 5.
March 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why in the world is this “encrypted”?
What's the key?

If you change it to 3579T8642, it's standard odd-even. I agree both that your variation is probably better and that it's clear that any of these variations is superior to both standard and upside down signals.

I cannot understand the American obsession with inventing tempo problems for this method. Just like with standard carding you easily encourage with the 3 from 32, though they are both low, so in standard odd-even you encourage with the 4 from 42, or discourage with the 5 from 53. This is not some fancy exception, but the very basics of the method, as taught and/or described correctly. Naturally, the convention's name “odd/even” is not a full description (see also “upside down” and “standard”).
March 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The OP opened 1. Even though it was in 3rd seat, declarer probably considered the possibility that the OP held at least 5 hearts…
March 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. Not sure I buy it, but still :-)

If you bid game and the K is off and you played a small heart, you do need to pick up both black queens, and also to avoid a heart ruff (and also avoid a club ruff, but that's unlikely in this construction). But if you played A, you basically need the lead to be a singleton, as this places the K with Righty, and Lefty needs both minor Aces for his bid, so they have no communications and you don't lose a heart.

The field's auction was probably less-revealing. So if they got the low heart lead, it's from shortness, and they'll read that and go up A. I real life, most of the field made 4, and as Lefty had a singleton heart, I take that to indicate they all went up A on the lead.

Your point about variance is somewhat weaker in IMPs, where cutting your loses is also important.

The spade play isn't as close as vacant spaces leads one to believe. Lefty has 7, or at least 6 diamonds, and may well have a shortness. But he didn't lead a singleton club, and if he has a singleton heart, going up A almost ensures the contract as above, so you mostly need to consider Lefty having no shortness or a trump shortage. Some sort of fuzzy restricted choice, I guess.
Feb. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Richard: You're right, I shouldn't have bid 3. To further your point, the play problem you'd be facing in 4 would be easier, as you'd have an easier time reading the lead after a less-revealing auction. Underleading the K is very unlikely on your bidding, so you'll easily read the lead (low or otherwise) and play accordingly.
In the event, most of the field was in 4, and most of them made it while I went off in 3.
Feb. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm feeling a bit stupid here, still…
1) what bad layout are you hoping for in a good field? Doubleton hearts on the left?
2) What play “with nothing to think about” are you assuming the field will take in 4?
Feb. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5 may be misunderstood as artificial because 4 is available as a natural club bid.

5 may be misunderstood as natural because even if (as in standard 2 over 1) responder is supposed to hide his 3 card support in the first round, it's his responsibility to reveal the 8-card fit in the major ASAP. Sure, he may be too strong for a delayed game raise. But then he should normally just take over in the 3rd round, either bidding 4 or making some sort of unambiguous slam try agreeing to s (e.g. RKCB). Splintering in a previously-bid suit over partner's “I have nothing to show you” bid is such a dangerous move, I would never expect it without a firm agreement before hand.

BTW: I would prefer to agree it's natural, but if partner insists on Exclusion Blackwood, so be it. Showing an ambiguous shortness (singleton/void) at the 5 level seems likes an inferior agreement.
Feb. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> It's now cheating to notice what the other pair is doing?
Sadly, yes. At least in my neck of the woods. It may depend on jurisdiction.

There's a rule against looking intently at the other players cards in order to (for example, I think) see where they pull the next card from and learn from that about their hand.

Not that I think the TD should use apply a rule here. Clearly, RHO should be warned against unfounded allegations of cheating, and forbidden from leaving gaps between the cards in his card holder. I would also ask that he not sort the cards within each suit, which will at least minimize the amount of information apparent as the hand progresses.

As events unfolded, there's no reason to suspect the opponents of cheating. It could well have been ignorance and/or negligence, and that should be assumed, despite RHO's accusations.
Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Last sentence: “If declarer” –> “If West”
Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“always” is your word. It did not appear in the OP's report of the 7 bidder's defence of his actions. He explained why he bid 5NT and it was not “for practice”.
So you've put words into their mouths and then attacked them based on these falsely attributed words. Then insinuated they were lying, at least to themselves.

I sure hope not to be judged in this spirit by any committee.

Furthermore, this is very different from classic Hesitation Blackwood. In classic Hesitation Blackwood the Blackwood asker knows is the only one that knows that the partnership has all the keycards, and telegraphs this key information to his partner by the hesitation, so his partner with extra playing tricks can bid the slam. Here, the hesitation telegraphed the grand is still possible. But (a) the Kickback responder already knew they have all the key cards, and (b) he already knew his hand has *way* more trick-taking potential than his partner can imagine (he did open 1NT).

Furthermore, for all the facts given, perhaps some of their methods after the 5NT answer can lead to 7NT (or 6NT). This would make the actual bidding sequence their text-book sequence as opener was was waiting to see if responder is aiming for NT before taking over.
Feb. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He found another Ace *and* his hand is very suitable for . Of course, he has no minor A, or he could've started with that.
AQ AKQJ KQJxx Kx?
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would bid, expecting the TD to be called. Later on, I hope he polls the right players :-)
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ask for a review with explanations. If they answer fully, Kit's answer applies. If they omit details and force you to ask further questions, I hope the TD would rule any UI their own @%$@#$% fault.
Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sounds good. But a booklet would have more:
- what's the definition of “good hands” (typically 13+HCP? 16+?)
- what are the strong continuations (if any) by advancer? Can he invite to game on strength?
- what's pass then cue-bid?
Feb. 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 23 24 25 26
.

Bottom Home Top