Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jonathan Ferguson
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For years now, I've been (mostly privately) lamenting the fact that BBO is so much less than it theoretically could be.

I hoped that when Bill Gates bought in that it would shift from a ‘grind every BB$ out of our members that we can’ model to a ‘let’s promote bridge' model.

But that's not what this thread is about, so I'll leave it at that.
Sept. 10, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Like any buffet, it will have its tasty morsels and its more mundane fare. Oh wait, it's BuffeTT.

I'm an admirer of the oracle of Omaha, but this event strikes me as anachronistic. I don't think pumping more $ into it would help, either (assuming the goal is to promote bridge.)
Sept. 9, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very tough problem and very unlikely to be solved in tempo.

If you're going to go on, I think 4N ( cue) and then not cooperating further (over 5, retreating to 5) is the way to do it.

After a lot of thought I think bidding 4 in tempo (unlike Bob, I'm not a fan of passing in tempo here) is the % action, though, if it's possible to do so.
Sept. 9, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm having more trouble figuring out how that would work than figuring out the first hand.
Sept. 7, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd say pard shows about 16 here. If he has 15 it's all working. I wish my 9 were the T or my 5 were the 8 but we're red at IMPs and the hand should play close to double dummy so let's go.
Sept. 7, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you misspelled subminimum, pretty sure it's not spelled a-v-e-r-a-g-e.
Sept. 7, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand got real messy now that you have UI (which might be yet another reason to bid directly as now you've confused partner.)

If partner had described your 2 bid as natural and bid 3, undoubtedly you'd have bid a slam, no? (He must have AJTxxx of , surely.) It looks to me like you took advantage of UI. (You know from UI that partner wasn't voluntarily introducing a new suit that he thought would play better than your suit, he was just ‘taking out’ your artificial cue-bid.)
Sept. 6, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm with the voters who seem to consider this a fairly WTP 2 rebid.

Reversing is inconceivable with 9 HCP.

I'm not sure why passing (which sounds like an offer to defend) would show no defense or why rebidding my suit would in any way imply extras ('free bids' showing extras went out of fashion a long time ago I think.)

I don't think this pattern's rebids are particularly undiscussed, either. If it's too weak to reverse you either treat it as a 4-6 or as a 5-5, depending on suit quality. Since the are so much better than the , treating it as a 4-6 is clear.
Sept. 5, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 looks right on the first hand. 3 would be 2nd choice. 4 seems pretty misguided and leads to missed slams and unsuccessful opening leads or 5/5 decisions from partner.
Sept. 4, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While I agree with bidding on, I don't see how ‘We may set 5’ is an argument for bidding 5.

I want to be in slam opposite xx x Axxxxxx xxx so I think I need to at least try to get there.
Sept. 4, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'll need a heckuva good round to get some silver points if I'm playing in a regional swiss.

I tried 5 over 4, but if I had only bid 4 I can bid 5 over 5 to involve partner in the decision.
Sept. 4, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure passing is a good way to describe a 3-loser hand.

I'm going to propose a revolutionary new tactic that has worked well for me in the past:

I start by bidding my fine 6-card suit.

If given a chance, and assuming partner doesn't support my , I continue by bidding my fine 5-card suit.

I call this tactic ‘describing my hand’ and while it may prove too strange or novel for some to accept, I urge you to try it before you reject it out of hand.
Sept. 4, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Trying very hard to see the problem … Am I supposed to double so we can wrongside it? Am I supposed to pass so I can torture partner in the hopes that he will double so that I can now bid 3N? Am I supposed to guess that 2 stops won't be sufficient and I should go for a small plus against 3X?
Sept. 4, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think ‘Decision time’ was over 6 and I'm not too crazy about my decision (to put it mildly.)

In a strong field, the safety play might be right as it's my only chance of a good board.

At the local club, go for 13.
Sept. 3, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your suggested treatment is interesting, Henry, but even with your example hand I'm not convinced that I'm any more interested opposite a stiff than opposite a stiff . Would I rather be in slam opposite AKxx KQxx x xxxx or AKxx KQxx xxxx x? To me whatever tiny preference I may have for one over the other is surely dwarfed by my desire to know if pard has shortness.
Sept. 3, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You have to read the comments to learn that partner didn't actually alert. So those discussing UI are discussing what actually happened and those not discussing UI are theoretically discussing the problem as presented and fwiu both discussions are welcome.
Sept. 3, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With the UI you probably should (must) bid 3 as that's the logical alternative most likely to get you in trouble.

Ignoring UI for a second:

I dislike the bid because it pinpoints the dreaded lead. But then, I dislike complicated agreements because when partner isn't busy forgetting them, I am.

Maybe you should have the agreement that if you show a hand with an unspecified singleton, 4 card support and gf values that if partner doesn't either ask what it is or bid game in his suit that he has forgotten your agreement. I can't think of a hand where I'd think it was more important to tell partner ‘I HAZ A!’ than to ask him what his singleton is, but perhaps somebody can.

If we change the original premise a bit and pretend that I showed a stiff when I bid 2, then I would keycard over 3. (Or just bid 6 if I'm showing off.) Surely partner has at least kxx axxxx axx qx and if that's all he has he won't be cooperating further.
Sept. 3, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm content taking a shot at 3N and I'm surprised it's not an option. I've been told that people don't lead their long suits against NT anymore, so I might even get a ‘passive’ lead. :)
Sept. 2, 2012
Jonathan Ferguson edited this comment Sept. 2, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I played it as you did, Gabrielle. I blame whoever ‘shuffled’ the board.

Perhaps a fair compromise line for those of us without Michael's ‘tickets’ would be to cash a high in hand at trick 3 (I can afford to cash 1 and still take the first 12 tricks as long as aren't 6-1 or 7-0.) If everyone follows, I play 2 ending in hand (as you did) and claim if they survive. (This line never costs against your (our) actual line and gains if E is 1-5-6-1.)

But when E shows out on the first , I have a ‘safety play’ available. I can ruff a in dummy and if E follows, 2 rounds of must survive. When E shows out, I can go into the tank now that I know that the tank is required.

(I'm not saying my line is best, but I think it's a fair compromise between safety and not wasting mental energy unnecessarily.)

Sept. 1, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've heard of playing straight blackwood instead of rkcb to avoid misunderstanding. But I've never heard of playing 0314 instead of 1430 to do the same before.
Aug. 31, 2012
.

Bottom Home Top