Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eric Hamilton
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For 4H to be right, not only does it have to make but also partner must hold a hand that might not raise your 3H to 4H. That's a very small target: the weakest hands that make 4H are a doubleton king of spades and four hearts, a perfecto like Kxx,xxxx,xxxx,xx, or it's on a finesse with QJx,Jxxx,xxxx,xx…. and it is not at all clear that these would all pass over 3H.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Partner's 3D bid is nothing like help suit…
Except that is. Maybe it shouldn't be, but then we would have a different bidding question (for which 3H is clear).

Maybe I should have said something about loathing the methods as well as the 3C bid? :)
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I started playing precision in the local club many many years ago (so many years ago that half the field was still playing Gorenesque strong twos). Sat down for the third round and the club director (the sort of colorful guy who only exists in our memories of the good old days) glanced at his cards, puffed on his cigarette, and opened (spoken bids of course, no bidding boxes) “Three clubs - precision THAT, sonny”
Jan. 6
Eric Hamilton edited this comment Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> I think the assumption is that we'd invite by showing our suit, and play in 3m if the invitation is rejected.

It's not clear from the original post whether the invite is an advance to 2NT that opener will raise to three with a maximum, or some way of offering opener a choice between 3m and 3N. Certainly the latter is more attractive; my comments and some by other posters were assuming the former.
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A simulation showing that blasting 3NT with AKxxxx is only 36% invites a followon question: What are the odds on inviting with that hand? We gain over passing when the invite fetches a raise to a making 3N, lose when it fetches a raise to 3N down, and lose when 2N goes down.
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Inviting with these hands is generally somewhat ineffective, because
- nine tricks will be easier opposite the right minimum than the wrong maximum
- when the clubs behave we'll likely do at least two tricks better in NT than when they don't

If you don't play transfers and super accepts or have some sequence that shows club length and invites, you might as well be deciding whether to blast to 3N yourself.
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed… and worth noting that the problem would be even more painful if LHO had not bid spades. At least we're no longer at risk of going down in a spade Moysian when a good minor contract is available.
Dec. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It makes little sense to double and then bid an unusual NT. The first-round 2NT tells the unusual story more effectively, and we need some way of showing balanced hands too strong for an immediate 1N overcall.
Dec. 28, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top