Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Murphy
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As the early results show, A and a low are the favorites. Which is better?

We are playing partner for 0-3 points, with the low end more likely. It is matchpoints, so being sure not to give up a trick that is ours is important. We hope to get our aces and K, and possibly one more trick if partner has relevant help.

A seems more likely to secure we get both aces and the K if it is going to be finessed into. A low seems more likely to help find an extra trick if one is possible. At IMPs I would be happier with ; I still like it but A is very close.
Jan. 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like pass at match-points, 5 seems better at IMPs.
Jan. 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Leo's auction seems good, and playing Flannery as Martin suggested would also get there. Drew's suggestion of 2 as fit-showing is also interesting. Thanks for the comments, all.

4M response to Jacoby 2N, showing a min, <5 controls, no singleton or void, and no five card suit with 2/3 top honors, seems fairly descriptive for the space it takes.

AQTx Kxxxx QJ Jx opposite K AJTxx Axx AKxx needs at most 2-1 trumps? Two trumps, three spades (sluffing two diamonds), one diamond, two clubs, five ruffs.

There are certainly possible hands that would be tricky on what E knows (AJx Kxxxx QJx Jx and similar), but 7 seems good considering the many holdings W can have that make it very high percentage.
Jan. 11, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What does 3 instead of 3 mean?
Jan. 8, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This seems partnership dependent. If partner opens solid 12 counts and better, I like 2. If partner opens all 12 counts or, worse, all 11 counts, 2 seems speculative. I voted for 1NT since lighter openings seems to be the trend.
Jan. 8, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I can't imagine bidding 3 here. Partner could have KQxxx xxx AK xxx and slam is nearly cold. And as Harald said, Kxxxx xxx xx xxx is at the bottom of partner's range and game has play.
June 3, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I want to game force here; undiscussed I guess I am bidding 2, but 2 xyz artificial game forcing would be great (yes, many don't play it over 1 1, I like it). Showing primary support can be very problematic if partner has 3 or 4, perhaps if 1 promises an unbalanced hand it is more attractive.
June 3, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not doubling. Assuming pass was right at my first call (and it looks good to me), 2 has not improved since then. 5 looks like a good lead if it plays in 1NT.
May 25, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So long as S (or partner) doesn't have a singleton or void in , the K rates to work when partner has a black ace too, right? A low wins when the K doesn't mostly when there is a singleton or void or in the rare cases when they can set up .

K gives additional chances to win when partner has a red ace. Is it particularly likely that S (or partner) has a singleton here? What are K leaders missing?
May 25, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand seems like it might be a misfit, and I worry about 2NT never mind 3NT. Yes, it is possible partner has xx AKxxxx xx xxx or similar, but with x KJxxx xxx Qxxx also possible I am happy with ending the auction.
May 25, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought that the problem was whether to investigate slam with 3 or settle for a direct 4. Opposite partner's hand plus the Q (ATx Q7xx KQJxx x), slam has good play. I would not be too disappointed with ending in a shaky 5 with 3 4 4 4* 5* 5* 5* as our auction. (*=kickback, 0/3, Q?, no Q).
May 21, 2013
Michael Murphy edited this comment May 21, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do not want to play in 3NT opposite most mins. I only want to play in 4 opposite certain mins. Given that I am not sold on playing in game, I want to invite, not game force, and let partner tell me whether we should play in game or not.
May 21, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think with 7 (3/2/1) or with AJTxxxx I would preempt, but unless partner and I agree that preempts are completely destructive (perhaps from certain seats) this hand is not quite good enough for 3.
May 20, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am leery of taking command with the weaker hand without a stopper. My q-ing rather than stopping in game should encourage partner to bid keycard with a stop and then place at the right level, playing me for a trick or two if needed so long as we have enough keycards.

I'm trying to figure out why certain people bid 4NT. (Perhaps the reasoning is something like this?: Partner is less likely to have a hand like A AKQJxxxx xx AQ than Axxx AKQxx AKx x. Presuming he has a control, responder should be in the pilot seat for keycard since is an unknown source of tricks and responder has third round control in every non-trump suit.) My problems with this are that q-ing seems like it should get us there anyway and there's no reason to take a 0 to two quick tricks when it can be avoided.
May 19, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the responses, I thought it was an interesting spot given partner's lack of support X. I passed.

FYI, the actual hand was a bust; tired partner forgot to support x with Axx T8x AQ QJTxx and apologized after.
May 19, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John: amusingly, he did in fact, tell me that some use this extreme treatment. He did not, however endorse it, and advocated the more balanced approach you mentioned.
May 19, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed. I do not think this hand is better than a seventeen count; once I decide to open it 1 I must rebid 2.

As an aside, this hand reminds me of an interesting theory I once heard: never open 1NT with (5/2) in the majors as it opens the door to playing in your 2-5 fit instead of your 5-3 fit. Especially with the sensible 2 rebid available I like 1 on this hand.
May 18, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like the agreement that I am forced to q bid below game (if I can) if partner q bids and is unlimited. Unless we are playing a novel 3 by partner or 3NT by me meaning (and I do not think I have serious 3NT if we are playing that), 3 should be a q bid showing first or second round control and 4 is automatic.

Partner can have the hand Yuan mentioned plus the club ace or any number of other hands where nearly all he needs is me to show a second round control for grand to be cold, e.g., Ax AKQxxxx AK Ax.
May 18, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What is the argument for passing here? W rates to have the A and pick up my Kxx. Is there some reason to play partner for four defensive tricks?
May 17, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good luck partner.
May 16, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top