Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Askgaard
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see your point of fat suits and little defense (no aces), but still I would say no thanks to 4N and take my chances with a takeout double.
Feb. 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you Paul.
Feb. 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm just curious what we are discussing.
Feb. 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What difference does it make if it is psych or deviation?
Feb. 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Right. I remember having my strong club overcalled with 3 = or majors. RHO had a strongish 5602 and passed of course. Only to see partner go -6 in 3 on a 2-0 with 6 making on a finesse.

Extreme board obviously. But I think that the ambiguity of the multi-meaning overcalls is often more harmful to the overcalling side than the strong club. But maybe it does rake points in against weak opponents.

I don't play them myself after having seen all those disasters, people produce against us. After 15 years of strong clubs, we are used to handling silly defenses, but the opponents who play them are often out of their comfort zone themselves, when they have too little experience with handling their disruptive methods.
Feb. 11, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think 4 is best played as a strong 3-7 like what I have.
Feb. 11, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After stayman we play:
2N transfer to clubs
3 transfer to diamonds,
so weak or strong (except transfer to after 2, which is inv or strong). Always with a 4cM, when we go through stayman.

With 4cM and inv we transfer to that major and have follow ups to show that hand type. The transfers deliver 5 card majors besides from that.
Feb. 11, 2014
Michael Askgaard edited this comment Feb. 11, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
6. Gets the primary message across that I have a try for grand without 1st round spade control (5 shows 1st round control). I'm not going to guess partner for a void myself.

If he bids 6, I bid 7.

6 would be natural imo. 5N would be RKC for hearts. I could bid that, but is partner supposed to show a spade void? Probably not.
Feb. 11, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think we have to accept with shortness when in a pinch. Partner shouldn't plan to pass with only 5 of them.

With the actual hand, I think we have a 2 bid.
Feb. 11, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
… with a bid, I hope, not a thinking pause.

(Just kidding)
Feb. 11, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know, but I don't think so. We should have other bids available to raise hearts, when we are still at the 2-level. So I don't see a good reason to introduce the ambiguous spade bid there to free up 3. But maybe you can work out a good structure yourself?
Feb. 11, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The most important developments of the game are about the practical conditions: Bidding boxes, screens, maschine duplicated boards, automatic scoring systems (bridgemates, result handling programs), online bridge, internet discussion sites etc.

If I should single out one, I would choose online bridge play. Close second would be bidding boxes.

Advances in bidding theory as such, on the other hand, have not really helped the game (but good literature has). I think the game would be equally fun to play had todays advances not yet been invented. But advances are fun to pursue. Working with the bidding system is one part of what makes bridge fun.
Feb. 11, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What does Meckwell play?
Feb. 11, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 comments: 1) we can't use it as garbage stayman then with 4s and diamonds. 2) I wouldn't want to show a 5c minor as a reply. Realistically partner is going to bid 3n over that 3m almost always, and then it is just unnecessary information to the opps.

But a good idea to work with the structure here. We could have:
2-2 as a max with 4S, and 2-2 as a min with 4S. That saves us from the three level while maximizing getting the -contract on the right hand, which is very important here. (3 “transfer” over 2).

2-2-2 could be assigned some special meaning also, maybe a mild or a strong INV or something.

Same structure could perhaps be used after 1-1N in second seat.
Feb. 11, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think partner already stated his opinion about playability in notrumps with his free bid. He could have passed, so he should have a decent hand. 3 is more like a singleton bid. I have Q9 and I am not worried about heart stoppers.
Feb. 11, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Going -600 for 6 down vul vs not in 3NT with 2 balanced hands, when a genius opponent passed 1st hand and throughout with 9 solid hearts and got on lead. They took A also. More than half the tables had defended 4x for -590 (9+1 trick).



Going +470 in 2x. A passed hand opponent made a lead director, and we didn't have XX to play there. From the bidding I knew we had 28-30 points combined and no particular good fit was possible. So with goodish hearts I chanced a pass.

The score board read 16 times 480 and 3 times 980 in our 4-4 spades for a cold zero.
Feb. 10, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Extended Grue!

Grue bids: Opps have bid spades and partner has just bid 3. Now 3 is fishing OR clubs, and 4 is slammy with hearts.

Extended Grue bids: Partner has just bid 3 and spades is fourth suit. Same structure.
Feb. 10, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'll skip through your first question, since I don't see that you are asking more than this: Do we need to inform the opponents that partner may have bid a high contract in faith of our good declarer play? The answer to that is obviously no, since bridge is all about bidding contracts and trying to make them.

I don't see where the talk about “compound squeezes” matters. That's just a label/name for specific plays, invented so they are easier to talk about.

The question about disclosing leads (and defense in general) is more interesting. I don't have a clear position on every aspect.

If we look at Steve's (brilliant) trump lead, then all his partner really knew after that board is that Steve *on that particualar hand* and *on that particular bidding* *by those particular opponents* led a low heart. It is obviously absurd to conclude that Steve tends to lead a low trump against grand slams from Qxx.

That's the problem about disclosing defensive tendencies. They are often too obscure when we look away from simple cases like “can give wrong count sometimes”, or “leads 5th best against NT rather very often to confuse” etc.

We can only disclose if we have something specific to say.

On the other hand, your strategy of signing off in a short suit does not have obscure implications. You have written an article on BW about it. You have explained how partner should take a passive stand even with a good fit. Assuming partner knows all this, the implications are crystal clear: If you make a signoff bid after a miniNT, you might easily not have the suit you run to (with a frequency that is far-far greater than a normal bluff frequency).
Feb. 10, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't follow.

It is *partner* who is supposed to disclose partnership information about my bidding. Even behind screens there is the construction that I tell my screenmate what I think *partner* knows about my bidding. I don't tell what I am actually holding, of course.

So I suppose that makes it a “no”. I don't see what there is for partner to disclose either, knowing nothing about my hand. If he is being asked if it is possible that I have bid the slam hoping he would perform a compound squeeze, then he could answer “sure”, but that is hardly helpful.
Feb. 10, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I disagree with your interpretation of “methods”. I don't see what calls for a restrictive interpretation.

Literally, “a method” could mean “the way of doing something”, here “the way the partnership is bidding”. Contextually, the principle of full disclosure is widely recognized as a fundamental of the game, and “methods” should be interpreted in that light.

I think “methods” includes everything known about partner's bidding habits as well as system.

An example. Say I play some complex structure in some situation, but I haven't really mastered it in full. So I make fuck-ups, and partner knows this all too well. That fact is part of our methods and should be disclosed. Only fair, since partner will hedge his decisions, and the opponents should be able to do so too.

This example to say, that methods is *not* just a formal set of agreements so that what happens “behind the curtains” of deviations and funky stuff is nobody's business. Methods includes everything partner knows, and if he knows about some tendency he should disclose with alerts and/or explanations if asked (depending on the situation).

Anyway, interesting and difficult topic. In practice absolute full disclosure is not possible. That's also how I understand Kit. But I think we should do our best.
Feb. 9, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top