Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Marshall Lewis
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 157 158 159 160
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(a) The first question is not whether 1H was natural, but rather what if anything it showed regarding Opener's distribution, especially with respect to clubs.
(b) I doubt whether there would be broad consensus that the mainstream default interpretation of 3N in reaction to the splinter is “offer to play”.
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Really?
What did 1H show, i.e. about the rest of opener's hand?
What did 3N mean, over the Splinter?

Hard to answer without knowing the answers to these questions.
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A lot depends on our agreements, and a whole lot on who partner is – and plenty on who we are too. Maybe we have these agreements, or this is how CHO would be eligible to think:
(a) 3S already showed a 3-card fit.
(b) We wouldn't ever cue over 3H without a fourth spade.
© Or if 3N was an offer to play, we wouldn't cue over 3N unless we had a HCP maximum because if both hands are balanced with only an 8-card fit, we probably can't afford to cut any corners.

It seems more likely that partner was chuffed by our preference for his suit and now likes his hand a lot more and has accordingly made a call of which we are big favorites to disapprove, than that he suddenly woke up to some anomaly in his chromatic-triage process (though the latter is admittedly possible). Anyway we don't have to like it or trust it or endorse it in order to cooperate with what seem to be his clear wishes – at the end of the day (or session), if somebody has to apologize for an impending debacle, let it be him not us. After all, maybe he has: QT8xxx Kxxx Ax x, for example. Sure, that is 1S for me and maybe for you, but not everyone passes the same hands.

Or to put it another way, just bite the bullet and …

“Keep those dogies movin', Rawhide
Don't try to understand ‘em
Just rope and throw and brand ’em
Soon we'll be livin' high and wide”
Feb. 18
Marshall Lewis edited this comment Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(a) If bidding 2C fits the description “unilateral”, then so does every single call we ever make.
(b) Also, every single call a player ever makes is chosen because the player believes it to be advantageous – assuming he/she is rational, anyway.
Feb. 18
Marshall Lewis edited this comment Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Honestly, I don't see how it is even possible to disagree with the statement that slam possibilities our way are transparent (even if slam is not actually probable), whereas slam possibilities their way are speculative. For one thing we can see 50% of our side's assets and we know partner has an opening bid, whereas we can see zero of the opponents' cards and they have shown nothing – so our side is known to possess between roughly half and two-thirds of the HCP round the table. It really isn't the slightest bit controversial which side is more likely to have slam, based on what is known at this point about the deal.

As puzzled as I am about the word “disagree”, in the context of the remark of mine that immediately precedes, I am more mystified still by what the adverb “profoundly” is meant to be doing.
Feb. 17
Marshall Lewis edited this comment Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is there a single vote (other than Abstain) or a single comment made in a single poll on BW that is NOT “opinionated”? In fact, doesn't that kind of go with the territory when people are being asked for their …. wait, what are they called? Oh yes … opinions?
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The possibility of slam our way is manifest, we can see it.
The possibility of slam their way is merely speculative – in fact extremely so, given than partner has opened AND we have an ace (not to mention other things).
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very sorry to have misinterpreted, but what I understood to be “the circumstances outlined by RF” are as follows:

“South deals and opens 2♦ (weak two-bid) and West overcalls 3♦. East-West have agreed to play Leaping Michaels.”
Feb. 17
Marshall Lewis edited this comment Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Asking them “how they would play the bid” is of course not the same as asking them the question posed by Richard. I believe the default interpretation of the question as so worded is: “What treatment do you prefer for a 3D overcall in this sequence?”, which is clearly a different question from the one that is the centerpiece of this poll.
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree – for me it is a “novelty event”, motivated primarily by participants' desire to finish early, and only secondarily by the abhorrence of slow play.
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
maybe not
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some people live in a parallel world where partner is allowed to propose a 10-trick game instead of an 11-trick game, with a very shapely hand that has a high ODR.
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
yes how else can it replace basketball ?
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let them. We have spades, which rank higher than hearts.
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(1) Why shouldn't we conduct an auction that allows us to bid a (near-) cold slam, e.g. when partner holds: AKxxxx Axx xxx K ? It is odds-on even with one fewer spade in opener's hand, and playable (e.g. via a finesse) facing a still more skeletal hand.
(2) It is not as if our major is hearts and we are short in spades, in which case we would be rightly concerned about them outbidding us.
(3) Also we can if we choose (and I so choose) arrange to get a club lead, catering to the scenario in which they do refuse to give up.
(4) Meanwhile, we can easily bid in a way that allows partner to diagnose a double fit when we have one.
Feb. 16
Marshall Lewis edited this comment Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And when they accept your generous offer, neither you nor partner will know what to bid. The big compensatory upside is, of course, that only one of you will not know what to lead.

Due to recent changes in the rules, bidding 4S at any point in the auction will force them to the five level if they want to compete further.
Feb. 16
Marshall Lewis edited this comment Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is pretty obvious that 5C might be the winning action on this sequence. It is however at least equally obvious that it could be a disaster in a variety of ways:
(1) They were about to go down in 4S. Not hard to envision.
(2) You go for a number facing a suitable dummy: x KQJTx Qxx Axxx.
(3) Partner does not even have a suitable hand, e.g.: x AKxxx Axxxx xx.

But the worst aspect of a 5C bid is that it violates one of the most basic tenets of bidding: DON'T SANDBAG. Even when you have been lucky enough to diagnose the situation correctly, this bidding pattern drives partner nuts and fatally undermines trust. Basically, partner will feel it as a betrayal – which it is.
Feb. 15
Marshall Lewis edited this comment Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suspect quite a lot of people here would have the exact opposite perspective.
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Vulnerability? It doesn't even depend what card game we are playing.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was tempting, but I eventually decided to give up on slam and pass.
Feb. 14
Marshall Lewis edited this comment Feb. 15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 157 158 159 160
.

Bottom Home Top