Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kevin Rosenberg
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don't I win the ace and claim the rest? Assuming rho followed to first club
March 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I disagree that 5s is ridiculous, or even necessarily wrong. E has a void, so E bid
Feb. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
i dont know peg, it's been pretty chilly hear in Berkeley - I'm sure it's comparable :)
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think we tied with you for third. Any idea what happens now? :)
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought about it some more, and I think you might be right that its better to go for option 1. Still, I am not defending 6D under any circumstances though.
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think there are two main approaches here (assuming partner will have 6 spades - if partner often only has 5 spades then I might think differently).

1. bid 4S and try to defend 5D
2. bid 4S and keep bidding spades up until 6S

I think 6S is unlikely to go for more than 800 and may go for 500. Of course, we don't really know if they can make slam, but it seems fairly likely.

I prefer option 2 because 6S doesn't seem like it will go for much more than game anyway. Even if I chose option 1, I would always sac. I am just never defending 6D on this hand.

I would actually bid 4D to start, since I think this increases my chances of buying it in 5S. Since my plan is never to defend, it doesn't matter if I trick partner.
Feb. 16
Kevin Rosenberg edited this comment Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
the 1st and 2nd hands are possible, but I really haven't seen 11 cards very often in practice.
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How is b3 close? Couldn't the doubles just have a 17 or 18 point hand with 3 card support. Over 2d, 2h is nf, no? And surely advanced will bid 2h with 5 hearts and 0 - 3 points or so
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you switch the 5 and 6 of clubs so declarer couldn't unblock them, then I believe E is not irrelevant. If E could keep a third spade, then a spade to the king would not work because W could return a spade setting up a trick for E. If E could keep a third diamond then a diamond to hand wouldn't work either because then E will get the lead in clubs and push a third diamond through while W still has the AS.

Only declarer's ability to unblock clubs means that they don't actually need E to be squeezed.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
pass, removing partner's next double to 4N
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I chose 2C then 3C, but ok with 1C if it is stylistically agreed / feasible
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1NT and don't care
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a stopper, right?

I think trying to get to 4s is kind of silly, 3n seems to have far more chances on balance. But I need 3n from my side, so I think the choices are pass or 3n. The red makes it more rewarding, but also more risky as going down a bunch is obviously possible.
Feb. 12
Kevin Rosenberg edited this comment Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think in my view, I don't really see the offending side as ever ‘benefitting’ BECAUSE of the UI. Yes, they may do better without screens, but screens vs. not screens are really two different games. I think what causes them to benefit in these rare cases is the lack of screens, and the fact the fact they had a misunderstanding. At least the latter happens every day, but for every time it happens, 10 pairs lose because they had a misunderstanding (at least in an ideal world). I don't see any problem with the former either… - as I said, screens vs. not screens is just two different games.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
yeah more examples isn't gonna help. We disagree purely on the point - I would disagree in both of your examples as well…

Again, why should the opponents have any right to know the wheels have come off? They do not have a right to know we are having a misunderstanding, they have a right to know our agreements.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
sorry somehow I just missed the part about LHO asking partner. But still, I don't have to say yes to RHO's question, since they can't ask me about my own bid.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with the sentiment of your example, in that you must say yes, and not show any anxiety or distress. However, in your example, it's a bit odd because for some reason, your RHO asked you a question about your own bid? So I don't see how you have UI in that case.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
well I don't know what to say to that, because it seems just false.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe as Ed says below, I am entitled to know I've misbid, ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF GIVING A CORRECT EXPLANATION. Of course I am not entitled to know when it comes to selecting my calls / plays. I'm pretty sure this is in accordance with the Laws (though not certain), as I believe the Laws only make reference to UI in the context of selecting bids/plays.

You're telling me I'm supposed to give my opponents what I know is an incorrect explanation of our agreements. I don't think there is any situation where this ought to be true.
Feb. 11
Kevin Rosenberg edited this comment Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why shouldn't my opponents think I hold 10-12 if that is my systemic agreement, and I've just misbid? That seems fairly normal, no? They're not entitled to know that I've misbid.
Feb. 11
.

Bottom Home Top