Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Fred Ferguson
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You need to forget that the par result even exists … par does not mean the best attainable contract. Par is simply a mathematical calculations of one pair bids this vs. the other pair bids that.
June 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First, your temporizing with a double is a misleading description of your hand. Partner will never, ever, ever after a double believe you have 6 hearts. You need to make the best descriptive bid or your hand … hold your hand out at arms length and look at it from some perspective and you will see the hearts jump out at you, bid the hearts.

Second, 3H is forcing one round, but the cuebid of 3S makes the auction forcing to 3NT (or game forcing).
June 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When double dummy says a slam is makeable, I often get the question how do you bid this slam … soooooo, I often try to show a logical bidding sequence. I think you auction probably reflects a common auction.
May 31, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I should have addressed the issue of South preempting in hearts, but was so hung up on the third seat opening issue … just ignored the possible preempt. :)
May 31, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my initial write up I show a reasonable auction to slam and in checking the actual scores many did bid and make slam. There were many who probably bid slam and got the play wrong going down.

While I did not say “this is a good slam”, I think my analysis shows a reasonable auction to get there and the play is reasonable to making slam.

Using Klinger's model of only requiring a finesse, I think it was a good slam to bid. Sometimes you will not know until afterwards i.e., it is not always possible to know from the bidding it will only require a finesse.
May 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I stated above, I first do an analysis of the bidding trying to find the best bidding to a contract (a reasonable auction) and then trying to quantify is it a good contract (game, slam, part score) and it is reasonable to find a line of play, etc. etc. etc.

The par score is a bunch of poop (cleaning up my real expiration). This analysis/score is misnamed “par”, like in golf it is attainable goal.

The way the par score works is double dummy, the analytical analysis does this … ok, what if someone bids this level or defends this level will the score improve or not … this analysis finally reaches this equilibrium (called par) where one more up or one more down will throw the score off equilibrium for N/S or E/W.

The par does not reflect good bidding nor should it be an obtainable goal, it is just a tool like when you are sitting around the table after AND can see all 4 hands and say “well if someone had done this or that”.
May 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
WOW, lots to comment on here, so let me address one point at a time, that way if you have follow up comment/s it will be easier to address. Let me say thanks for taking time to read the analysis and commenting. Also thanks for sharing your level of interest.

I write up my analysis for TCG in a program called Bridge Composer. I am somewhat “space restricted” in BC, and thus, I must choose on each deal the topics or areas of interest for discussion i.e., I cannot address all topics on each deal. In addition, I utilize the robust nature of BC and make bidding footnotes and include a trick-by-trick analysis with trick footnotes that DO NOT get translated into BW. I have requested that BW import these fields, but that is a technical issue out of my control. Therefore you probably need to review both the TCG and BW write up (a pain in the ass I know).
May 26, 2017
Fred Ferguson edited this comment May 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with you 100% … from a club perspective, being in 4 making 6 should generally rate to be above average (or even a near top) on this board. But getting a near top on a board is not why I select a deal to review. Often, I get the question “how do I bid slam on this deal” so my bidding in not a prediction of what will be the normal nor what will be a near top, but is it possible to logically have an auction that can reach slam. Then I try to quantify is it a good slam, it is reasonable to find a line of play, etc. etc. etc.

My guideline on whether a slam is “a good slam” or “a bad slam” comes from Ron Klinger (CUE Bidding to Slams). “A small slam is worth bidding (i.e., a good slam) if it has a 50% chance of success … this means that it is reasonable to venture a small slam if it would make with one successful finesse. However, it is a poor slam (i.e., a bad slam) if it would require a finesse and also a 3-2 break in trump.”
May 24, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is not a matter of losers … I would have no issues opening a one-suited hand with 19 hcp and 3 losers 2C because I will not typically have a problem bidding out the shape of the hand. But as I said “I don't like opening two-suited hands 2C”, often it takes 3 or more bids to bid out shape and if the opening bid is 2C you have already preempted yourself one level of bidding.
May 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I will be interested in hearing other's comments, but I don't like opening two-suited hands 2C even under the best of circumstances. Opening 2C presents problems bidding out the shape of this hand.
May 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is rare that there is one right or one wrong way to play/defend a deal. I try to take this into consideration when writing up an analysis of a deal. Holding DQJ876 (the 876 being important, and not the 543) leading the DQ looks a lot like leading from top of a broken sequence, and thus, the DQ and not the D7 or D6.

Another argument for a diamond lead is if you have or think your partner has 4 trumps, lead your longest suit on the premise this might actually tap the opponents in trump. My suggestion of considering the heart lead is presenting one additional strategy of trying to tap both hands in trump instead of tapping one hand in trump as would be the strategy of leading a long suit to tap one opponent.
April 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I stated in my analysis many will lead the DQ (an attacking lead). But in the auction there was a game try based on hearts not another suit, and thus, it could very well be the opponents might make this contract based on ruffing losers. Leading a heart cuts down the ruffing values for both diamonds QJ876 and clubs A1053 where South has potential winners (and partner may have some potential winners in spades). If it was the H2 singleton would you lead it?
April 25, 2017
Fred Ferguson edited this comment April 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My 1NT is forcing (I need to get my foot note to transfer over, so yes if you do not play 1NTF, 2NT would be fine.
March 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know your agreements, but the double has to be for penalty. Partner could just as easily bid 4C but didn't (i.e., the dog did not bark in the night). Depending on your agreements I think you have to sit for the double.
March 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you win 1 early spade and cross to the clubs and lead a diamond to the DK and East wins his DA he has no additional entries to his hand.
March 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
sorry for typo “8-hearts”, “7-card heart suit” later is correct
March 23, 2017
Fred Ferguson edited this comment March 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
you are right there is no Bd 6 … WTF
Aug. 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Toby … you should be able to click on Bd 6 and make a comment.
Aug. 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry the play trick by trick does not show up here but will on TCG website.
Aug. 2, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top