Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Brian Davies
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you Roland, this is a timely post on an issue that I have also been interested in. One of your “Just Bridge” situation is improvising a jump shift in order to create a force. An interesting example of this was discussed in:
https://bridgewinners.com/forums/read/intermediate-forum/bidding-problem-2-pk2750qm18/?cj=668656#c668656
Most respondents seemed to feel that a jump shift on a singleton was “just bridge”.

My Machiavellian idea was that if responder were to employ another of your “Just Bridge” scenarios (passing bids described as forcing) we could end up with the absurdity of a Burn's Law violating 3-1 fit:
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-j3kbkoiv4d/

I didn't attract as many takers as I thought I might (maybe my example was not well chosen?), but I liked the idea of a 3 contract after 1, 1, 3, Pass on these hands:

32
A4
AKT85432
A

98764
QJ932
-
975
June 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And if the auction was hypothetically 1, 1; 3?

What would you bid then?
June 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Roll back to 3 AND apply a heavy procedural penalty for knowingly acting on Unauthorised Information. Then apply a further procedural penalty for “The 4S bidder was calmly asked why he bid 4S. The 4S bidder went ballistic.”
June 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 is purportedly a natural bid (not alerted). A natural bid promises at least a three-card suit (at least where I play, based on EBU regulations).

In my opinion, if the 3 bid was actually based on a two-card suit it could be argued to be a deviation. But bidding 3 with a singleton is a gross mis-statement of suit length and is a psych.
June 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is 3♠x going down? If partner passes?
May 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You started with 11 HCP and deducted 1 for the lack of aces, 1 for the sterile 4333 shape and 1 for the lack of intermediaries?

Or just miscounted? :)
May 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For many of us these days it would promise a six-card suit, since it suggests an unbalanced hand and the opener is not two-suited (since the rebid has by-passed diamonds and hearts).

But this means that we have to be prepared to open 1NT with a five-card spade suit, 12-14 points and 5332 shape.
May 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner was pretty aggressive. You might have held:
♠QJX
♥KJXXX
♦JXX
♣AK
May 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So partner, who doesn't have a singleton or void:
- has two fast losers in clubs
- has two fast losers in diamonds
- is missing the AK of trumps
- Doesn't have a source of tricks (he can't have a six-card side suit and has at best a poor five-card side suit).

Yet he is committing us to the five level and cue-bidding in search of a slam. What is he smoking?

I guess that if you trust partner then you really can't be any better … but I'm still struggling to picture partner's hand!
May 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just out of interest, how many losers do you assess for this hand Richard? LTC is far from an exact science and different authorities make differing adjustments.
May 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 - lead directing
May 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North, who started the auction by showing a weak 2 in spades, suddenly decides to double clubs. Why? It can't be lead directing - he will be on lead against a heart contract.

I am sure of one thing - redouble should suggest playing in 5C XX.
May 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Probably the reason that we didn't double or bid 2S is that we were pretty ashamed of our opening bid.

We are told that “we are in a good place”, but if that involves leading anything except the obvious King of diamonds I fail to see the attraction.
May 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play a weak NT, but I don't see how it is the solution to this hand.

First are you sure of your agreements? Is 1NT, (3H), X penalty or take-out? Does this meaning change if the doubler is a passed hand?

If you have agreed that the double is take-out and partner doubles, will your decision be any easier? If you have agreed that the double is penalties, will your partner be stuck for a bid?
May 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The old insufficient bid coup might work against you on this hand.

Difficult for partner to bid the slam after you have barred him from bidding!
May 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The hands are here: http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?s=S87HKT986543DCKT6&n=SAT42HAJD875CAQ32&w=SKJ63HQ72DKQ4C754&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=3D

The hands were first discussed on another forum: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/78646-can-you-reach-slam/

For those passing as south, would you double / bid 3NT as North in the protective seat?
May 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Ian, you have asked a question about a very (English) Acol issue to an international audience and have largely been met with bewilderment because it is a non-issue in most systems.

Historically in Acol, the bid was non-forcing (so were sequences such as 1H, 2C, 2D and 1S, 2D, 2NT) and promised 5+ spades and 4+ diamonds. Eric Crowhurst in his major work on the system “Precision Bidding in Acol” describes it as non-forcing, but constructive. It is of course silly to quote a book that is over 40 years old, but the sad fact is that there are no modern texts on Acol.

But despite the lack of recent books, Acol has moved on and this bid should now be taught as forcing for one round and promising 5+ spades and 3+ diamonds (yes there are exceptions and you might even have fewer than 3). Frances Hinden wrote a good article in the magazine English Bridge (August 2015) on this sequence.

It is important also to consider follow-ups. After our partnership agreed to change the sequence to forcing, we found ourselves on a different wavelength after 1C, 1H; 2C, 2D; 2H, 3C. The 3C bid was intended as forcing but passed.
May 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
More fully Law 87 is:

LAW 87 - FOULED BOARD
A. Definition A board is considered to be fouled if the Director determines that a card (or more than one) was displaced in the board, or if he determines that the dealer or vulnerability differed between copies of the same board, and the contestants who should have had a score comparison did not play the board in identical form for such reason.
B. Pairs and Individual Scoring In scoring a fouled board the Director determines as closely as possible which scores were obtained on the board in its correct form and which in the changed form(s). He divides the scores on that basis into groups and rates each group separately as provided in the regulations for the tournament.
(In the absence of a relevant regulation the Director selects and announces his method.)
C. Teams Scoring See Law 86B2.

Rosalind is correct that it is a fouled board. It can be scored against other contestants - but only other contestants in the same group (before and after the board was fouled).
May 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed. So neither option applies.

The deal is not invalid. But it is not valid to score the board for pairs who played it after the rotation against pairs who played it before the rotation.
May 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A 3 opening for example is a pre-empt, not a psyche.

Whilst I am not suggesting that a strong NT is a pre-empt, it can often have the mildy pre-emptive effect of making it difficult for the opponents to compete. This is a not insignificant factor in choosing to open 1NT?
May 2, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top