Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kevin Rosenberg
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
no, if you know that your actual agreement is 10-12 (even through UI), then by extension you know your actual agreement for 2H is majors. You should tell the opponents your actual agreement, even if that UI can't influence your future actions.

Now if you're not sure what your actual agreement is, it creates a really awkward picture, since now it might wake your partner up to the fact that something weird is going on. I basically agree with Kit in this case. More specifically, I think you just tell the opponents whatever you think is most likely to be your actual agreement (using whatever UI you want to determine this)

In general, there are two boxes of thinking here, which are totally separate

1. Informing the Opponents about your (correct) agreements
2. Your own follow-up actions

Afaik, there is nothing in the rules against using UI to help achieve #1, which is definitely something that we do we want achieved. Bridge is a game of actions, and the only place UI is harmful is if it affects #2.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Ben, and possibly others, above. At imps, 4d seems definitely best, as your hand is quite good for slam, and you expect to make 5d. At mps, 3n is probably correct, but close.
Feb. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You should accurately EXPLAIN your agreement, even if you only know your agreement because of UI. However, you cannot act upon this UI.
Feb. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
if the opponents pass throughout, you could wind up declaring in a suit where they have length. I guess we can never bid anything at all if we don't know the opponent's longest suit.
Feb. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I Think I believe in 1d in theory but I haven't done it enough in practice to say I'd pull it out in a big event. I think I'll start doing it more though.
Feb. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I were coaching novices I'd say their bids are totally normal and move on. If I were coaching more advanced players I'd say to e that this hand is a good example of why one should be wary of trapping with bad spots, but that being said, the bids are STILL just normal here with a 6th trump. A lot of resulting going on here in the comments
Feb. 6
Kevin Rosenberg edited this comment Feb. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think somewhat close, but passing looks right. Only other option is to make a single try with 5c imo. I expect most people will bid 4s on any bal 18 to 19, most of which will make slam touch and go. Hands like aqxx ax akjxx xx are about as giod as i can expect, and there slam is fine, but not incredible.

Pegs failure to include pass as an option sways me to believe it was not the winning option on this hand, else she is playing a very deep game
Feb. 4
Kevin Rosenberg edited this comment Feb. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd have bid 4H over 2n, and I don't think doubling here is particularly good judgement with a fit in both red suits and poor trump spots

Note that even if you choose not to bid 4H over 2nt, surely you MUST at least bid 3c, which I think can logically only be a game try in hearts.
Feb. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I sympathize a lot with E's bid. I know I don't like W's bid. Still, nobody was way out of line.
Jan. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A key point that's being missed is with a double fit, South is really expected to bid 3 over 3 with most hands that have 2 spades and 4 diamonds, surely including any hand with Ax spade.

Further, I'd think any hand with the Ax and 5 diamonds is at least very close to bidding a game, though not as clear as on this hand.

South, having passed 2 diamonds, has a pretty low top end of their range. Indeed, I think as do many, that south really ought to have bid 2S the first time round. But if this is the case, then surely South has about the best hand they could. I'm arguing that their bid of 3S should be made on much worse hands, like changing the AS to the JS and adding the KC. If one accepts this, then it must be the case that either South should bid 4S with this hand, or that they should never bid 4S at all (I think the former)

Further, just a few additional points. You say N is looking at 9 tricks if S has 0 HCP. If S has xx xxx xxxx xxxx, N has 8 tricks with two 3-2 breaks. If they have the 5th diamond, which there's no reason they really should (and in fact I think it's an important extra card), then N has 9 tricks with a 2-2 and 3-2 break. If N really was a favorite to take 9 tricks opp. a 0 HCP 2344 hand (or even 2353), then of course I'd agree they should bid game, but this is not the case.

Second, this hand you gave of QJ109xx, x, AKJx, Ax in fact produces a cold game, and indeed it's the sort of hand that I'm not convinced is definitely supposed to bid game over 3S, though they might. If you, for example, take away the AC, I still think it's ok to bid 2S because of the purity and suit quality, and while 4S probably will not make, they probably can make 4H.
Jan. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South went low twice so I blame South, in equal parts for pass and 3s. North could consider sacrificing, but they've mostly bid their hand, and their pass could easily be right.

My philosophy is of you've already gone low by passing 2d, and then partners next bid significantly improves your hand, then we should be going high next. We obviously feel comfortable bidding 3s, which is a sign we should be bidding 4. Partners actual hand is not surprising, and produces a great game. Lastly, our own range for 3s probably includes hand like 10x xxx qjxx qjxx, and our hand is much better than that.
Jan. 30
Kevin Rosenberg edited this comment Jan. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As long as east doesn't overtake th e js, the defense can still prevail
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did declarer put up the QC from the dummy when N shifted? If not, then didn't the J force the K, in which case partner is surely marked with the AC on the bidding, no?
Jan. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I dont think diamonds are at all likely to be breaking. Certainly, it would be bizarre for S to have Qx or Qxx
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
was “brace yourself” an orthodontist pun or an accident? If it was on purpose, you really have no shame.
Nov. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also West could be thrown in on the 4th round of diamonds after declarer takes one club hook on either hand
Nov. 14, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top