Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Marshall Lewis
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes in a club game that has a good chance of working. At a higher level, many opponents will be playing that a negative X is either the unbid suits OR some sort of raise to 3H, whereas a direct 3H is the other sort of raise to 3H.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
sensible at IMPs
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree overall, but the way you have cast the issues – talking exclusively in terms of game and slam – looks like you may have thought this was IMP scoring. The general points you are making, however, apply mutatis mutandis to MPs (i.e. partscores) as well.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It might not be a great thing to be able to answer these questions correctly.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good question. I don't think so, though, for several reasons:
(a) What matters here is your PARTNERSHIP history, not the full gamut of your non-partnership experience of the player in question.
(b) In order to have a “CLEAR view of partner's lead tendencies” (emphasis added) based entirely on observation as opponent (or for that matter, kibitzee), you would need a database of substantial proportions, which is statistically very unlikely to be the case.
© Even if you have one, it would be a gratuitous assumption to suppose that whatever pattern you may associate with him when he is playing with XYZ can confidently generalize to other partnerships that include him.
(d) Whatever experience you might have of players' tendencies based on their performance in some other partnership(s) is not PROPRIETARY information to which your personal cognitive fund has privileged access. In principle that information has been equally available to your inquisitive table opponent – just as it is to any other member of the Public At Large. In other words, it is not the case that you know something that he is not (apriori & ceteris paribus) equally eligible to know, and that is the criterion for what has to be disclosed.
Nov. 5
Marshall Lewis edited this comment Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Have the rules changed then? Do spades no longer outrank hearts? Why am I always the last one to find these things out?
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If responder has a 2H response, he isn't going to Pass – he is going to Double, and if partner has spades he is likely going to bid 3S either sooner or later, and that may convert a plus into a minus. Bidding 2S does have the upside of being more likely than 1S to jockey the opponents into an inferior contract, but it also runs the grave risk that partner will over-compete. Ya pays ya money and ya takes ya choice.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Majors tend to have a way of getting found regardless of what suit the opening bid has mentioned. Meanwhile, spades still rank higher than hearts – and the primary reason for acting here should be the possibility of effectively outbidding the opponents for a plus score our way (reaching a successful partial or pushing them too high), not blocking their discovery of a fit in a lower-ranking suit than we have.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I personally would rate the chance that partner will be on opening lead as relatively low – and a fair amount of that time a spade lead will be no worse than anything else (or at least, anything else partner is at all likely to find).
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What fun to play in games where that works.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1S – Bridge is a partnership game. Partner expects me to set the stage for competitive bidding when we are likely to have a spade fit, especially at this vulnerability and form of scoring. I would hate to let him, and the partnership, down.

2S – Bridge is a partnership game. Partner expects me to put pressure on the opponents when I have a viable reason to do so, especially at this vulnerability and form of scoring. I would hate to let him, and the partnership, down.
Nov. 5
Marshall Lewis edited this comment Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At this vulnerability and form of scoring, partner's idea of “adequate trumps” may be different from yours, even after your strenuous attempts to housebreak him.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oops – I wrote all that under the impression that the opening bid had been in second seat. Then when I read further in the thread it belatedly became apparent to me that this was not necessarily the case. In fact it now seems likely that Barry meant that WE are in second seat holding this hand, as initial modifying prepositional phrases (like participial phrases) are canonically associated with the subject of the ensuing clause. In that case some parts of what I wrote above would be obviated.

But that doesn't change my call – 1S in any seat (except first).
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with your bid and most of your reasoning.

However it is tactically unwise to have the same expectations of a pre-empt by partner when you are a passed hand as when you are unlimited. To quote Terence Reese: “A pre-empt that is known to be weak is a blunt sword” – and most notably so under the conditions set here by the OP. Moreover, 2S has a considerably better chance of driving them one level too high than does 1S, which presumably is the main reason so many people here are choosing it.

Having said that, I still bid 1S along with you, partly because if partner has a single raise in him I would rather he got to bid it at the 2-level than the 3-level, as the latter might easily turn a plus into a minus.

There is a second reason as well – the future. Every call we make with a (semi-)regular partner contributes to their database of the actions we have taken, which strongly influences their own choices in auctions to come. The outcome on this particular deal does not rate to be of monumental consequence – far more important is the carryover. I want my partner to know and remember that I regard this lot as a 1S overcall rather than a pre-empt (and a fortiori as anything else).
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If we had to volunteer every single potentially relevant agreement we have at all times, we could never get on with the game. There is no doubt that we would not all draw the line in the same place between things we should/must proactively announce, and those we will readily vouchsafe upon enquiry. Never before, though, have I come across the opinion that every single agreement of whatever sort belongs to the first category and none belong to the second.
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It might be a veracious imprecation, but it doesn't read much like a commandment.
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why? What would you propose to do after a raise gets passed back to you after a 3D overcall, that would not be available after 3C? Would you really bid 4C with this hand in that scenario?

I certainly agree with your reason for rejecting X, though it is just Unum E Pluribus. As already noted, I voted for 2N and do not see that I am any worse off over a raise than if I had bid 3m. What am I missing?
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Then how do you get to 3N when you have both minors and a good hand, as you have here (to take a randomly chosen example)?
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You also don't have anything remotely close to nine tricks. Plus you might easily be wrong-siding the contract, because if your partner does have a heart stop Opener's suit is not so great, and he is then a favorite to lead a spade right through your AQ.
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do not regard 3C as weird at all. I voted for 2N but my clear second choice is 3C which has multiple advantages over 3D – not only is the suit better, but there is at least the possibility that partner will surprise us most pleasantly by re-bidding 3D, whereas over 3D clubs are a massive favorite to get permanently buried. Everything you have said in support of 3D is equally true of 3C. In my view 3D has very little if anything going for it.
Nov. 4
.

Bottom Home Top