Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Murphy
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I passed because I have great defense and game seems incredibly speculative.

Ed: Discussed this; passing is loony, especially at IMPs.
May 15, 2013
Michael Murphy edited this comment May 15, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What caused me to pass is that, given the bidding, partner likely will be able to reopen. More importantly, if he cannot, the hand is fairly flat point-wise. If that is the case, I am not sure whether we have a better spot than defending 2 vulnerable at matchpoints.

Double fits pretty well, and I expected it to be popular. I think it is also a good bid. After passing, if partner bids again I will have to bid very aggressively, whereas double gives partner a fairly accurate description of my hand earlier.
May 15, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Favorable at IMPs this is a slightly close call as it may disrupt their auction to game. In all other situations, pass seems like a big winner. At MPs they will end up doubling you too often, and at both MPs and IMPs bidding 2 on air gives up a good deal, as Leo mentioned.
May 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For those who pass, two spades will be raised to three spades and pd will come again four clubs. What now? (3 - 4 - P - ?).

My initial reaction, and what I would guess would be the standard action, is to take a “false preference” to 4. Partner bid first, and at matchpoints I lack sufficiently compelling reason to prefer the minor part-score to the major game.
May 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems like I have a min for what I have shown given my methods. Partner did not want to bid on, why should I? Partner will have another chance to bid if it is right.
May 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see no reasonable alternative to 3 - 3 - 3NT
May 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
x seems like a really good way to show the minors over 3 in this sequence. I would be surprised to find many playing 4 as minors, especially without discussion but even with.
May 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Having bid this way I am giving 6 a shot when partner has a keycard. I think I would prefer 5 to 4NT; we easily may be off two quick club tricks.
May 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Leo; abstained for lack of a “both A & B” option.
May 4, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Being less glib: A would be rare to find. However, partner preempted in second seat, he rates to have something outside his suit. He will never know that Q or A + Q (or the mythical Jxx) is enough to get us there.

“Far from laydown” is pretty unfair; 5 needs opponents not to have a ridiculous 8-0 type void and not to have Qxx. 6 needs that and partner to have one of a couple of possible cards or distributions. Opponents may also be friendly by underleading Q to partner's J or doing something really weird like underleading A to partner's K or leading a spade to partner's A.

Judging from the voting on this, the odds must be way off for partner to have what I need. But if partner has even QJTxxxx xx xx xx, this rates to make on a ruff. If opponents don't lead , this may make opposite QJTxxxx xxx xx x! There are so many chances for slam and we can never get there scientifically.
May 4, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A + Q helps because I can sluff a loser.
May 4, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good partners have exactly one of {A, Q, A + Q} in this situation.
May 4, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, at these colors. I wish you had finished your sentence so I could see the error of my ways.
May 4, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I bid 4, but at matchpoints I do so with some trepidation (at IMPs 4 seems exceedingly clear). What is the difference between 2 and 3? I had thought 2 2 3 would show a stronger hand here.

Should partner bid 3 with a singleton? It is implied that he has one here, but if 3 contains singletons and voids (rather than just voids) I am very worried.

Partner needs a maximum hand, like the one Yuan provided, for this to make. That and similar hands are the ones I constructed for partner – that is not giving 3 too much credit? KJTx x KJT AKJxx, for example, faces problems on a lead and continuation.
May 4, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is unlucky that opponents preempted to 4 without the KQ and that partner lacks a 4 card suit. Trying to make the best of it:

Duck a . Win return. K, A. If LHO played 2 of JT9, finesse, otherwise Q. Q finesse.

This makes on 3-3 and K onside or 3-3. It also makes with 2 of JT9 in LHO and 2-4 with K onside (assuming JT9 not 3-3 offside). I could not come up with a reasonable line of play that makes on “most” 2-4 breaks. Normally K onside or a 3631 distribution without leading the singleton would be very rare with this auction, but given opponent's bidding so far the value of such inferences is lessened.
May 3, 2013
Michael Murphy edited this comment May 3, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5, especially at these colors.
May 3, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 preserves my aces to take honors and works to set up partner's K if that is our fourth trick. Sometimes S has AKQxx opposite partner's singleton, but often this lead at least does not cost when leading an A promotes a K. A was my second choice and may well be the better decision.
May 2, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What am I missing about 5? We already have a terrific fit and it gives away information; are there hands where we want to play in 5 or where we want partner to bid on to the 6 level (and only 5 gets him there)?
May 1, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am a big fan of NT with 5422 shape, but here I am not looking forward to a or lead from W if this gets passed out. Given that we almost surely have a part score in and the potential downside of NT, 1NT would be my third choice at IMPs.

I can understand the rationale behind 2. If our agreement for 3 is “this is preemptive and we never advance over preemptive bids,” then sure I will bid 2. But if 3 is a constructive bid that shows a distributional, limited hand rather than merely “a preempt,” 3 describes my hand perfectly.

The argument made by Andrew G., that our ODR is high and we should welcome competition rather than scare it away, is not unpersuasive. The more I think about it, the better 2 seems. However, the hand has both high offensive and high defensive potential.

Opposite, e.g., x Kxx AKxxx Axx, 5 is nearly cold. With such a hand, does 3 make a game look more attractive to partner than 2? It seems like it to me. Moreover, if W slams 4, partner is either singleton or void in , and there are many hands where we want partner to “sac” into the making game.
May 1, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I feel good about the meanings of 4, 4; the rest is for whatever it is worth:

a. No, unbalanced with clubs (and spades) looks fine.
b. Yes; what does W do with x KJxxx xxx Qxxx?
c. Yes; what does W do with x KJxxx xxx Qxxx?
d. Min., to play, 4 shows a better hand.
e. Not particularly; E has the gf but has losers lurking.
f. What is the meaning of the following bids?
4 - Cue bid – partner accepted the first choice of strain, why would we look for another??
4 - Suggesting a place to play with about 3 of them. Partner can judge whether 4 or 5 is the better spot.
4NT - Perhaps due to lack of imagination, I can't think of a hand where I bid this way so far where I want to bid 1430 or 4NT natural. There are hands where I want to bid RKCB if we play 0314. That aside, I suppose it is natural, as it is the first opportunity to suggest playing in NT after showing E's suits.
May 1, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top