Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Martin Henneberger
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 70 71 72 73
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Deleted.
Oct. 14
Martin Henneberger edited this comment Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Common Mike. This is a count situation no matter what defensive signals you've agreed to play.

When partner has virtually guaranteed a 7 card suit by bidding and raising themselves we can't possibly have enough cards in the suit to signal attitude looking at Q 3rd in dummy. Exactly what attitude would we be “showing” holding a singleton?

Partner needs to know how many we have and work out the defense from there. The 4 tells them we have one when declarer also follows, and the J is either 1 or 2.
Oct. 12
Martin Henneberger edited this comment Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is not a trick 1 attitude signal. This is a standard count situation and the J is a count card. It is either singleton or doubleton. The 4 would be a sure singleton.
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If this sequence invites me to the party I sure don't like it. My best guess is that partner was willing to play a “safer” 6 contract upon hearing a super accept but has chosen to play a “safer” 6NT now.
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cornelia, your argument doesn't hold water. Why on earth would South introduce diamonds when they have 3 card support in a major that partner has shown 5 or more in?

The short answer is they wouldn't. That would be a failure to play bridge. When your side has a major suit fit you don't suppress it to go looking for a minor suit contract 1 level higher instead.

I can speculate as to why South chose to bid 4 when they did, but I don't have to. It's hard for me to believe they'd have “tiny” ears for what 3 was telling them when their actions demonstrate possessing a set of rather “large” ones.

There are some players who simply don't know what they've done wrong. For those players, it wouldn't surprise me to hear the director ask South why they bid 4 only to hear them respond “my partner thinks I have spades so I had to show them I didn't”. The rest of us, however, should absolutely know better.
Sept. 14
Martin Henneberger edited this comment Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Harald, I'm not sure I'd get to the part about passing 4. My poll would have already disallowed the 4 call.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Bruce

How would you bid differently and what game would you try for as North holding AKJxx xxx x xxxx after hearing South bid 4?

I'd be careful about making assertions about what North can't hold. Not only could they hold what you say they can't, it needn't necessarily be a unilateral action.

Sometimes 4 would be bid with the hope of mild support. It would certainly be bid a lot more often when, as here, South could be suppressing 3 card support. Suggesting that 4 is a slam try for diamonds instead, becomes too far fetched to be considered.
Sept. 14
Martin Henneberger edited this comment Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cornelia, unlike your granddaughter's case, this case is not about an opponent accidentally misbidding or deliberately bidding out of the system. Not recognizing the difference is a failure to understand the laws in their most basic form.

It would be fine to say that you don't get it. What troubles me the most about your position in the OP is that it is SO LOUD about being SO SICK while being so wrong at the same time.

“South is entitled to make any bid he wishes, in or out of system, and is entitled to pull 4 to 5 if he wishes. As long as North explained what he believes the bid was agreed to mean, no damage at all.”

Completely false. South is not permitted to hear the misexplanation and must bid as if North “knew” what the 2 bid showed. It isn't hard at all to recognize that South has a raise to 4 over the 3 bid.

Let's imagine for a moment that South was able to tell the table what their bid actually meant when they cuebid. Now let's imagine that North, armed with that information, chose to bid 3 because they actually held real spade length. South would happily raise to 4 and the partnership would park it there.

What we have instead, is an illegal wiretap by an eavesdropping South, who chose to bid 4 instead of raising spades and continued the debacle with a 5 call. It should be clear to everyone that the only reason that happened was because of the UI South had in knowing their partner actually thought THEY had 5 or more spades when in fact they had only 3.
Sept. 13
Martin Henneberger edited this comment Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can't fathom any weighted score where 5 gets any consideration.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Sathya and Debbie. I'd forgotten that was the consensus agreement.
Sept. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Doesn't 1-1-1NT-2*-2*-2 show an invitational 4-4?
Sept. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing 2-way we can splinter in opener's suit or our own. I've agreed to play “think of partner first”. That would make 3 in this auction a splinter for diamonds. To self splinter, I'd relay with 2 forcing 2, then jump. You could, of course, reverse this agreement.

We can show a 5-6 by bidding 2 followed by 3. Being able to splinter in opener's suit as well as our own is invaluable.
Sept. 4
Martin Henneberger edited this comment Sept. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, you are too polite. “Hell yes, it promises 6” would be my answer.
Aug. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I decide to open 1 with 4-6-1-2 shape in 3rd seat and you're asking if I need a “full” opener to rebid 2 now?

There will be many hands where a 1 opener is chosen in preference to 2. That I would need a full opening hand to rebid 2, after a negative double asked me to do something, is bewildering.
Aug. 30
Martin Henneberger edited this comment Aug. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the choice is highly dependent on the rest of your structure. For example, if you use 3 as “Puppet Stayman” and have no way to show a hand that's weak with both minors, then the in-between bid should be reserved for “not thrilled”. This allows your side to transfer to diamonds when holding a weak 5/5 so that, as Randy stated above, you can play in the presumed “better” fit.
Aug. 26
Martin Henneberger edited this comment Aug. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think passing is a losing proposition with that hand type. Are we really planning to pass a re-opening double? That's just a crap shoot. It's not hard to imagine them making several uptricks while our side is cold for game or slam.

It would be normal for partner to reopen with Axx x KQxx KQJxx where 6/6 is a good proposition and the opponents might also realistically make 8 tricks in hearts or 10 tricks in spades.

Even if we did speculate to pass and have it be “right” the opponents may end up finding their spade fit. Trying to catch up then will be a tall task fraught with guesswork. The parlay needed to have pass work out favorably is too big for my liking.
Aug. 26
Martin Henneberger edited this comment Aug. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After 1-(1) I would bid 2 holding x xxxxx AJxx Axx.

I think bidding 1NT with this hand type is more flawed than starting with 2. Passing will often lead to an impossible guess later and might handcuff partner on many deals where they need to know you have values.

Should we compete to 3 later when the opponents settle in their 8+ card spade fit? When partner is 4-2-3-4 we should probably be defending. When they are 3-1-4-5 certainly not.

On another day, I could see our side missing game when pd chooses not to bid a 2nd time holding extra club length or extra values while hearing their partner pass with both opponents bidding.

I think raising with 3 is rare, but as with many other auctions, it pays dividends to show a “fit” and values earlier rather than later.
Aug. 26
Martin Henneberger edited this comment Aug. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On the 3rd round of diamonds, a “helpful” North will discard a count card in clubs. When they then produce their diamond before the revoke is established, South will have all the info needed to get it right. :-)
Aug. 23
Martin Henneberger edited this comment Aug. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The director has erred in your first example. This is a direct quote from Duplicate Decisions:

“Occasionally someone will point out declarer’s lead from the
wrong hand. That is merely calling attention to the irregularity. Both defenders still have all their rights.”

Pointing out which hand declarer is in is not an acceptance of the lead. You were well within your rights to request the lead from dummy.
Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the goal is to simply beat the contract when declarer holds Void Axx AQx QJT98xx, then exiting a spade still holds them to 10 tricks. To collect several vulnerable undertricks, one would have to play for the spade void at trick 2, risking -750 in the process.
July 30
Martin Henneberger edited this comment July 30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 70 71 72 73
.

Bottom Home Top