Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Murphy
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bidding 7 for “would have bid 3 immediately.”
Feb. 14, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 2N feature is available I think I give that a try to scope out a major feature. Otherwise probably 2 unless odd meaning.
Feb. 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A bunch of bridge books and players better than me have told me not to lead or underlead aces at suits as a rule with limited exceptions. This doesn't seem like an exception.
Feb. 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is it crystal clear what 3 shows? What does it show?
Feb. 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Double seems clear?
Feb. 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like 2 over x; my hand lives there, and a lead may be needed if E declares a suit. If it is our hand, partner can bid 2 if possible (or perhaps 3 if need be, though this is admittedly a loss compared to starting with double).

>Assume that you double it goes 2C by LHO, P by partner, 2H by RHO. Now what?

I pass; partner was not interested in bidding, I should be happy with defending or otherwise at this point.

>Assume that you pass or double, it goes 2S by LHO, pass, pass to you. Now what?

If I chose to double, I think I cringe and pass here, if partner can't bid over 2 I don't think I have another bid. I can't really imagine having chosen to pass, but I think I have to x 2 if that is how the auction has gone to that point.

Ed: Formatting, rephrasing
Ed2: BW disagrees, emphatically. Does x KJ9 AKQJxx Qxx merit 2? If not, where do you draw the line? Is the main worry going for 800 or missing a fit?
Feb. 12, 2014
Michael Murphy edited this comment Feb. 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would be surprised if three suited hands are common enough to make this a system win over suction. Has that been your experience?
Feb. 10, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pass was close to 3 for me, as partner may accept with wasted values and was unable to find a limit raise.

If we had short suit game tries (for example 2NT asking about help suit tries and 3 asking about short suit tries), a short suit try in might be appealing.
Feb. 10, 2014
Michael Murphy edited this comment Feb. 10, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
T or x of looks good to me. Perhaps we find partner's A preventing declarer from sluffing a singleton , and if not it doesn't seem likely to cost much.

x of could find A but could easily give up the contract if A is on our right, and there looks to be a good chance of that with E presumably having 3 keycards.
Feb. 10, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
SPOILER BELOW:





happened to be 5-2 in EW, so on the actual hand E tanked and bid 1 and we had an easy 2 call.

If E does not intervene, 2, which is what I would have chosen, forces us to game when we make 3 and 1NT opposite partner's minimum non-fitting hand.

There are often situations where late in the auction judgment is tricky and can costs 5-10 IMPs on one bid. This situation seems rare in that there is a tricky decision to make after one bid by partner and that 5-10 IMPs hangs on the decision.
Feb. 9, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was more worried about S (or N) having a stiff, but perhaps low is superior. (or maybe ) seemed right to me, though, for the reasons you mentioned below, even though I knew 6 would be the “standard, accepted, majority” lead.

can easily give up a trick, and gives up the chance of them finessing into your Q.
Jan. 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's what I thought at first. But that hand is perfect and still requires either no spade lead or the club finesse.

The number of possible hands where we make 3 and go down in 3NT (or go down much less in 3) seems large enough to make the odds bad, even red at IMPs.
Jan. 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We need partner to have a perfect maximum and mis-defense to make 3NT. I love bidding game at IMPs unfavorable, but 3 makes sense even at IMPs here.
Jan. 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does 5 here have an understood meeting? If my expert partner was willing to play at the 5 level unfavorable with no information about my hand, I could see the argument that I should bump him/her a level with just Ax. Surely this hand rates a bump if any does?
Jan. 19, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At IMPs pass is crazy, but it doesn't seem too bad here to me. Game seems unlikely; 5 is likely too high and 3NT looks problematic in if we are declaring.

Do we really get 3 more tricks in than in clubs? At early voting, everyone I “follow” voted for 2 or 2NT; why?
Jan. 19, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ed: Kit's comment above, which came in 15 seconds before mine, describes exactly the sort of “better system” that one ought to consider playing instead of Bergen if possible.

It seems to me that whether playing Bergen is worthwhile depends a bit on what the alternative meanings to 3 and 3 are. If they are going to be WJS or Bergen, Bergen is probably better (especially assuming Bergen is the only way to show both limit and preemptive raises). There are better systems than Bergen, but they are less common and often must be discussed.

Overusing Bergen is also probably worse than never using it.
Jan. 15, 2014
Michael Murphy edited this comment Jan. 15, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes; 1 x 1 ? might have been a more interesting poll.

Perhaps bidding at the first opportunity was what the “much better player” meant?
Jan. 15, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. Opposite even Kxxx x KQxx KQxx we get around 10 on offense and around 5 on defense.

The risk reward of passing is much better at MPs than IMPs, because when it does not work out it is “just” a bottom, and when it works out it is often a top, even if 2 is down only 1. At IMPs, when pass does not work out it can be a double digit swing, and 2 down one is only just above average.
Jan. 15, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 shows what here? Is it red suits or just a general force?

What are the merits of bidding here? Is it to try to take up space and disrupt opponents' auction?
Jan. 15, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was surprised that 2 got so many votes and 1 got so few.

2 really hurts finding out about ; opening a weak 2 with 4 in a different major is often bad; 5 in another minor seems not too different from that situation.

1 is only 1 point off from the rule of 20. And despite mis-characterizing my HCP, it is the bid that most easily portrays my offensive strength and distribution.
Jan. 14, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top