Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kevin Rosenberg
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit, what would you respond to a standard 1s opener with the E hand?
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East is definitwly not to blame I think. West went a little low, and missed a playable game. Game isn't that good anyway.
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Both North and South probably should have done more. South could have bid one more with a void knowing both sides had a fit. North could have jumped to 4c, as others mentioned.
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I Frances, consider myself to play constructive raises, as about 7+ - 10, and still also respond 1n and jump to 3s with a 3 card limit raise. I would respond 1n with this hand probably
Jan. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It has a good 14… normal 1n opener.
Jan. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree Richard. A better question is does anyone play it as forcing?

To summarize what I'm saying: would you agree that we don't really know what South would have taken 2NT as had there been no UI? Presumably, the sequence was not explicitly discussed, since N-S weren't even on the same page about 2H.

The UI clearly suggests passing. So if there are multiple ways 2N could be treated without an agreement, and one of those is forcing, then I think South should be ethically obligated to interpret 2n by that LA (losing agreement).

In other words, just like you don't get to make a bid suggested by the UI when LA's are available, you shouldn't get to assume the agreement which is most favorbale to you given the UI, if there are other, less favorable, reasonable agreements you could have assumed in an undiscussed situation.
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom, I never used the word criminal to describe South. I said it's criminal to allow them to pass 2nt.

We don't know what South thought 2n meant. They might have thought forcing with an ask, just forcing, or nonforcing. As a director, I think it's clear 3h is an LA simply because we can't know what they would have thought without the UI
Jan. 22
Kevin Rosenberg edited this comment Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They probably hadn't even discussed continuations over WJS since they weren't even both playing WJS. Allowing this person to pass 2nt when they knowntheyre going to get very high, possibly doubled, by bidding, is criminal. We have no idea how they would have taken 2nt, and they have all the UI in the world suggesting pass. Imo 3h is automatically an LA since they might have thought 2n was forcing without the UI
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If responder tried to get to a slam after the slow 2N (and was right, opener was some offshape hand with like 4 clubs…), it really doesn't seem like fair pool. 99% of people would just bid 3N.

I don't know why passing is being mentioned in the poll…
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think you have to define it. Usually when dummy has Jxx, I think of it as “safe” to encourage with a doubleton, which is not the case when dummy has xxx. This is of course because declarer will usually not figure out to duck with Axx, though a very strong declarer might look at my signal and realize they can (but it's difficult to do this unless they've already planned to look at my signal).

Anyway, I don't think there is a simple generic answer. But if dummy has xxx, I do think encouragement should normally only be done with the the A or J, because declarer can duck the trick. When dummy has Jxx I think it becomes less clear. There can be general stylistic discussion, but I think a case-by-case basis really is necessary.

The general stylistic question you are basically trying to answer though, is, I suppose, “signal for what you want”, vs. “signal what you have”. Both approaches are imo fine, as long as you agree.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Others have summarized the nuances of this situation pretty well. I'll just say that next time, it's probably a better idea to just give the spots and asks which card we play, rather than using the suits as options. That takes away some level of nuance which could be important on many hands
Jan. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
against strong opposition, the KH at trick 2 may not work. they will either shift to spades (in which case it probably will), thinking they need to cash out, or they will work out the blockage and play back hearts. They know you have at least one running minor when you lead out your 3 card suit.

At the table, of course if you are lazy, you might play as David mentioned above, and get your hand squeezed. But this line is almost sure to fail, especially against decent opposition (unless the diamonds break that is.

I think the best line is probably to win, cross to a club, and lead a spade. This, at least, will almost never go down when the AH is onside, unlike leading out the KH. The key defense will be for RHO to hop up with a spade honor and shift to hearts. This should also be found pretty easily by a top player, but is at least harder than the other plays mentioned I think. Also, I can still recover to make even with the heart ace offside when spade honors are split and RHO has 5 hearts.

I do fail when diamonds and hearts both split evenly, with the AH offside, but at least I make them defend well.

I suppose on the actual hand, I would probably go down since both spade honors are offside.
Jan. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you can't splinter in a major over the x, then it is almost unplayable to have to bid 2nt with a singleton in a major, at least without followups
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's not true that you lose space if you asked how we show a good raise. Personally, I play jump shift in om is limit plus. So I lose one bid when opening 1d (3c being the limit plus bid), and gain 3 when opened 1c (2d being the bid)
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
when you open 1NT, and the opponents overcall 2H, you could ask the same thing Peg.

There is more need for an invite opposite a wider-range it could be argued, so perhaps that is the best agreement, but at any rate, I, like many who chose lebensohl I'd guess, have the agreement to play system on over a balancing NT, which includes system on in competition… So my answer was based on what I'd always play, and not what I thought was necessarily optimal.
Dec. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the right thing to do here is bid 2S and then jump to 4D over 2NT. This gets the picture of a 6-4 with slam interest across I think. Certainly if keycard is going to be bid, I prefer it is diamonds.

If partner raises spades I may regret my choice.
Dec. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think partner is 3424. I doubt any other shape.
Dec. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think double is penalty but 2d is also natural. Not every hand with diamonds wants to double 1nt.
Dec. 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would normally finesse unless I know the opponent is a capable player. If I don't know them, then the event I'm in might have some bearing, but I would normally finesse.

It would be very different to me if the length were in the dummy. Then i would only finesse against players I was confident didn't know this idea
Dec. 12, 2019
Kevin Rosenberg edited this comment Dec. 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Multi is a situation where many inexperienced players, especially American players due to our rules, don't know how to bid very well. Then again, most bidding situations are situations where inexperienced players don't know how to bid very well. All I'm saying is multi isn't some imp generating machine, and that if they won by a lot, it probably wasn't mostly because of multi, though of course it could have gotten them good boards.

I agree with what you said about emphasizing the rules to players in their language before entering events.
Dec. 7, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top