Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ben Thompson
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 28 29 30 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand was kind of cool at our table.

Renee found the excellent 10 lead. Leading a into the strong hand has many many faults and I'm very happy with Renee's thoughtful choice.

So we ran that to the K, robo-declarer ran Q successfully, and then put K on the virtual table.

Renee grabbed that and continued clubs, and we duly took 2 tricks. I switched to 9. Declarer cashed their 3 top 's, throwing a first, and then had to decide which other little red card to pitch from the board on the last big as Renee showed out pitching - still right on her game - her last .

Having seen the finesse already work, and Renee clearly having started with 7 red cards (of which one would usually presume no more than 4 were hearts), and no clear indication from the bidding that would place the K, declarer chose to…

…throw another and play 's from the top.

Interesting line. Robo probably decided that Renee couldn't have started with more than 4 's, but she was a favourite to have 4 because (a) she didn't lead one (presuming she would with 5) and (b) didn't pitch one (which she might do with only 3).

If you follow that through, Robo gets the double shot of either dropping my 10xx offside, or throwing Renee in with the 10 to lead away from her K.

Nicely played, Robo.

Maybe I went wrong at trick one. If I play the J, declarer may go wrong subsequently (when Renee puts another through after winning A) and enable us to cash 3 tricks. Now Renee can put a through and it's basically impossible for declarer to get the hand right from there.

That does require Renee to have 8 though, and I wasn't even 100% sure she had 4 of them at the get-go.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I find that marginal 5-5's don't play that well in a 5-3 fit unless partner has support for the side suit. They DO play well in a 5-4 fit, almost regardless of the rest of partner's hand.

So - I typically invite (long suit trial) if I think we're probably on a 5-3 fit, but bang out game if I think we're likely in a 5-4 fit. Side benefit - if I do make a long suit trial, I basically want partner to accept with support for the second suit OR with a secret 4th trump (and not a complete pile of crap)
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I opened 3. Standout red vs green. 1 misrepresents your values & gives the oppos an in to find their contract/sacrifice, or overcall-investigate-give up.

Opening 1 is seriously antipercentage in my view. I'd rather open 4
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It probably gets me to file a recorder form.

I don't go for the double shot (ie I do my normal thing; I don't pass and try to get it back in court if that was wrong). In my view players who try that sort of thing on are no better than the dodgy hesitators.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My general agreement in unanchored auctions is that bidding a suit they MIGHT still have is natural, but bidding a suit they have established they DO have is … whatever our other agreements say it is, but typically a raise or a stopper ask/show.

In this auction, the 2Der's suit hasn't been established and 2H is kind of the opposite of natural. So 3H for me is natural (upper limit will depend on your defensive method to 2D)
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With a 6 card suit, it looks more like a play hand than a defend hand to me.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The real question is “what's your default rebid after 4th suit?” That is, when you don't have: a stopper in the 4th suit, 5 in 2nd suit, 6 in your first suit or 3 (Hx) in pard's first suit, what do you do?

I bid the thing my partnership has agreed is the default rebid. That way everything else is clearly meaningful, and only the default needs to be viewed with a degree of suspicion.
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a bit of an opportunity for Smith signals. North clearly doesn't have a S honour but they did start with 3 of them

In this situation I would play North's (negative) Smith as “I have a better idea”, and the “positive” Smith as “I can't thunk of anything better for us than to keep playing your suit”

That's probably enough to encourage South to continue a low one rather than cash the bullet
April 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bidding (grand) slams with two strong 6 card suits is notoriously difficult.

You might start 1H-2C(2/1)-3H which I play as a non-minimum with a 6+ suit that will play for 0-1 loser opposite a singleton. AQJ432 does not qualify.

That you think you have a ripper suit doesn't end all other options. So over that:
3NT = I heard you and I don't like it. Let's try this
4C = my C are better than your H (0, maybe 1, loser opposite a void; AKQ432 does NOT qualify)
3S/4D = cue for your thing
4H = I heard you and I'm not that keen. Let's try this

So we might proceed 4C-4D (cue for CLUBS) - 4H (CUE should be the K; the shortage is already known) - keycard for CLUBS - answer - some grand

7H might be the better choice, eg if South has xx K Axx AKQxxxx because the super solid H's mean you can ruff a C
March 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is one of many auctions where I prefer 2NT to be “2 places to play”.

In theory I make the distinction between “2 places” and Lebensohl based on whether it's a length or a strength situation. For example on this one after (1C)-1H-(1S)-P-(2S)-X-(P), EW have both done some bidding, North passed when they could have easily had a go, and we have plenty of suits that we might want to play in. This is a situation where landing in the right fit (ie establish length) is much more likely to be the issue than figuring out whether or not to bid game (ie establish strength). Therefore, 2NT is much more useful here as “2 places”

In practice, it's easier and a lot more reliable to have a rule (or a few) that details situations where specific options apply, and a default option that applies in any situation not specifically covered.

In my case, I don't play a lot of Lebensohl. My rule is that it applies if and only if:
1) we open, overcall or X 1NT and the next hand bids at the 2 level
2) they open a natural weak 2, we X and next hand passes
3) they open a multi, we X, the auction gets back to that hand below 2NT with pard passing, and our Xer doubles again

I also play 2NT is a raise in some situations, and even (shock!) natural in a few specific situations.

Every other time, 2NT is 2 places.
March 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bill processed a bunch of our 5-5 competitive hands a few years ago and concluded that showing the shape was materially more important than distinguishing the strength in detail.

That said, I still prefer to bid some medium strength control-light 5-5s out rather than go via the 2-suiter bid just to avoid this kind of mess where no-one makes anything and the 2-suited overcall endplays partner into a misjudgment (broadly, I prefer to back partner over the opponents to make the right decision with better information).
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kate's comment reminds me of a lesson I learned from the late great Bobby Richman - give them the last guess.

Sometimes they get it right - but if you force anyone into a series of guesses you win on average
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner might also have something like xxx - K10xxxx xxxx. Competing with a flexible bid (here, X) is much better … when you have a flexible hand.
March 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ravenna showed the way to success. He gave false count on Pellegrini's A lead (I checked their card - they play reverse count in this situation).

Pellegrini “knew” Ravenna wasn't going to be overruffing a , so he just cashed K and tried Q hoping Ravenna had the K … which he did.

Giving false negative attitude on the A lead works just as well
March 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In principle I prefer to play against tough oppos. I quite like what Stephen & Pele did - had David Appleton sitting in both oppo seats. The dedicated oppo just needs to remember to be realistic in what they do.

However, Renee & I both have mixed up schedules and we often only schedule practices last minute, or have to shuffle them around last minute. So even though bots are inferior, they are convenient for us.
March 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like Helene's willingness to bid 3. There are reasonable reasons for a preempter to have another go, and this is one of them.

I think 4 would be natural as well. It doesn't make much sense for a preempter to bid solo by showing shortage - in practice you're only having a 2nd swing because you have a secret side suit to bid (so just bid it to the approrpriate level) or secret extra length in your original suit (so just bid it to the approrpriate level)
March 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry all, this article is intended for a forum, not the main page
March 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Leading the honour out of hand can work too - eg if you can make it look like you are trying to create an entry to the board. As usual with “fakes”, the earlier you try it, the more likely you are to get away with it
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Renee also opened 1, which I'm ok with. Despite the piles of points and aces, my hand has a lot of holes so I gave it away at 4 when Renee showed zero interest.

Then Renee played it nicely to make 11 tricks legit on their best lead - a . Basically, she drew trumps, cash 's, and exited A, J which endplayed West.
March 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can mix it up by round, so each group of boards get played with the same oddball rule around the room.

eg:
- boards 1-4: we play anticlockwise
- boards 5-8: we use bowers (ie the trump J is high, and the same-colour J is 2nd highest)
- boards 9-12: diamonds are a girl's best friend (and rank highest)
- boards 13-16: lead for the next trick comes from the partner of the hand that won the previous one (creates some interesting entry-management problems - and solutions)
- boards 17-20: upside down cards (2 is high, A is low) - this one is harder than you would think
- boards 21-24: no takeout doubles
- boards 25-28: the beer card is to be taken very seriously!
Dec. 21, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 28 29 30 31
.

Bottom Home Top