Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eric Hamilton
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did Socrates not say “The uncaffeinated life is not worth living”? Maybe I’m misremembering the exact quote, but I’m sure I have it pretty close.
May 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm thinking about the choice between 4C and 3H, not 3H and 2H. 4C pretty much guarantees that game won't be missed :) and I'm not sure it will lead to a minus much more often than 3H.
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Presumably responder will bid 4H over 3H with Kxxx of hearts and the club king or diamond ace (so we want to be in game, taking ten tricks when the hearts are 3-2 and no defensive ruff)? But then responder is going to make the same raise with Kxxx of hearts and the spade ace or other spade values - and the opponent's silence suggests that partner has some of these.

So I'm not sure how effective 3H will be at keeping us out of game when we don't want to be there, yet getting us there when it's right.
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Quackiness is less of a defect in NT play than in suit play. That's an argument for leaning towards NT when pass is not an an alternative and you're worried about quackiness.

(A choice between opening or not is a different matter - quackiness is a never a good thing).
May 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I’m understanding Sathya’s previous post properly, that gaggle of quacks wasn’t responder’s hand, but intended as an example of why bidding 4S directly over 2S would be ill-advised using this partnership’s methods. But yes, if that were responder’s hand it’s a pretty clear sign off.
May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's something a bit odd about how this poll has played out. The question being polled is what to do over 3H; that's gotten an unsurprising 96% vote for game in spades with no discussion (all the discussion has been about responder's single raise).

So I'm curious: Sathya, is there more going on here than meets the eye? What was north trying to show/accomplish with the counter game try? 4S is right under my nose, but was jumping to it a bit lazy? (This last is a question that might not occur to me except in a BAM problem)
May 24
Eric Hamilton edited this comment May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is the sort of deal that makes playing with a resulter so unpleasant.
May 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ace lead asks for an attitude signal, but after dummy comes down with the QJxx east cannot have an encouraging holding. In situations like this, where the attitude is now known, does it not make sense to assign some other meaning to east's card?
May 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was the void (hypothetically) signaled before or after I bid 3H?
May 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In a club duplicate…. If partner is expecting me to play to win this match, pass is the odds-on call. That didn't stop me from bidding 6N.
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Not to mention that, if it costs bridge players anything at all to get their CC copied they will make sure to bring them henceforth.

Not only have you accurately assessed the general stinginess of the average club player, but you may also have exposed the ulterior motive behind the original post.
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What are the continuations after the singleton-showing 3H and 3S? And is 45 in the minors acceptable for these calls or must it be 56?
March 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Other because it depends on the alerting rules where you're playing.
Also Other because even if the alert isn't required, there's no reason not to issue it if playing online and self-alerting both opponents but not partner.

And voted for “just bridge” as well.
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I remember playing on OKbridge many many years back…. 100+ kibitzers (and no, they weren't there to watch me) when I held a 19-count in this situation…. jump-shifted into 3C on exactly this club holding…. messaged kibitzers “Gotta love that SAYC - no forcing minor raise”…
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> I admit I'm not sure what “qualitative” means here, but I defintely see a quantitative difference. The number of players who know to lead the Q from Qxx is far greater than the number who know to lead the 9 from J9xx.

An additional consideration is that the players who know to lead the 9 are also much more likely to get the claim right (in any of several ways, including leading the 9 before claiming). In this hypothetical question but not in the original question the careless claim is evidence that it would have been followed by a careless play.
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Without the interference, over 2S:
3H other major would have have agreed spades and forced to game, stronger than a direct 4S;
4C over 2S would have been RKCB for spades;
4D undiscussed
Feb. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2S showed 4 (or 5) spades, same as if west had passed. Double by north would have been penalty.
Feb. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suppose that I should also ask that if you disagree with double or with 3C you say what you would do instead….
Feb. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3S is not a subset of 2S if there exists a hand that would bid 3S over 2S but would also bid 3S (splinter?) when 2S would have been sufficient.

But although I may be on solid ground in terms of set theory here, practically speaking I think that the more likely problem here is potential UI. Many players will be reluctant to convert an insufficient cue bid to a sufficient heart call… but if responder has a hand that would have bid 4H over 2S and opener fields it because it's obvious that responder wanted to bid 2S over 1S then we have a UI situation.

I'd be inclined to allow the 3S bid, but review as a UI problem if responder doesn't have full values for 3S over 2S and the partnership recovers.
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The FH example hand may be enough of an outlier that it justifies seizing the captaincy over a 4S that was intended to end the auction. But it's an outlier, doesn't change the basic logic of the auction as Woolsey describes it.
Jan. 23
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
.

Bottom Home Top