Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Marshall Lewis
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(1) Flippancy is never co-operative, and when the question is a legitimate one – as it most certainly is here – it is worse than “non-responsive”.
(2) OBVIOUSLY things are going to depend on his hand and the bidding. There isn't a questioner alive or otherwise who doesn't realize that.
(3) Yes it certainly DOES depend on the bidding, but the thing is you see that on this deal there actually WAS some bidding, so the question is rightly and very easily understood – however it may have been phrased – as meaning “On this type of auction, do you have marked tendencies (whether individually, known by firsthand experience, or jointly as a matter of partnership policy) toward either attack or conservation on opening lead?”
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don't flatter yourself, it is an extremely competitive event :)
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is so obvious it really should not need stating, but agree that it is sensible to err on the safe side.
Oct. 20
Marshall Lewis edited this comment Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It totally applies.

First off, “It is a strategy and not a style” is quite debatable, not just at the level of “To which category does PQR belong?” but because the category labels themselves (“Strategy” vs. “Style”) have no clear definitions and thus no clear boundaries between.

Much more importantly, however, that first point is actually moot, because EVEN IF we grant that it is a “strategy not a style”, that in no way exempts this information from the legal responsibility to disclose. Which situations are conducive to solo operations such as super-aggressive preempting, and which are not, is also a matter of strategy (in my book), but foes are entitled to know if your partnership has any basis for “same-wavelength” in this domain.
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have been lobbying in favor of this for some time. Failing such a documentary innovation, perhaps it is not a bad idea to make it a habit to ask a general question of this sort prior to the start of play, before there is a particular hand, and thus a particular problem, coloring the context of enquiry.
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AKxxxxx x Jxx xx
hardly overboard
Facing: xxx xxx AQ xxxxx
finesse for game
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Must lack imagination as I cannot think of any alternative to 3N
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I will certainly bid something. Just a question of what our methods are.
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Had RHO not passed already, I would perhaps balance. But the pass by dealer means that LHO can have a pretty good hand for the 3S opening, and in my view they are much more likely to have missed a game than we are.
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is how things work in these polls:
(1) Someone poses a problem, specifying pertinent conditions, which include the methods at your disposal.
(2) They ask what you would do and why, IN THAT CONTEXT.
(3) IF THEY SO CHOOSE, they can add an invitation such as: “If you have some pet methods that you think would make resolution of this problem easier, please advocate them.” HOWEVER that does not happen very often.
(4) IT DID NOT HAPPEN HERE.

So with respect to a RESPONSIVE reply to the questions actually asked, positing alternative methods is approximately as relevant as announcing: “I play the 1430 version of RKCB”.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If partner does bid it, it would probably not be guaranteed to be natural. Sometimes he just can't bid 3N and wants you to do it if you can.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How are your personal methods relevant to the problem faced at the table by the player who was operating with the set of defensive methods clearly spelled out by the OP ?
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was under the impression that I had already answered that very question in point (1) of my immediately preceding post.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I couldn't agree more with Barry here even if it were in theory possible to agree more, which is impossible. Or this:

(1) It is essential that partner's spade cards reflect count, otherwise it could be impossible to analyze declarer's shape, count declarer's tricks, and/or divine his intentions and of course based on that draw inferences about his hand.
(2) Why on earth would we need redundant suit-preference signals.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Declarer opened 1C, and the lead was passive. So maybe partner's thinking about SP – which had to be activated and expressed before declarer took what now appears to be the spade finesse – excludes clubs as a reckoning post.

In that case, his heart plays are either an encouragement for a diamond switch or else just a denial of spades.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Declarer won't have a doubleton spade. He has three.
Partner could have Kx of clubs, but very unlikely to have Kxx.
Oct. 13
Marshall Lewis edited this comment Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
maybe two voids?
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do we lead low or high from a doubleton?
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Confused why “3NT from our side” has any bearing on this.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
yes I am a big proponent of cultivating carryover
Oct. 12
.

Bottom Home Top