Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nigel Kearney
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 76 77 78 79
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You need an agreement. My default agreement is that bidding a suit shown or bid on your right is natural. Bidding a suit shown or bid on your left is a cue bid even if they only showed 2+.
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3NT says I'm happy to play 3NT.

If partner cannot support spades or hearts or rebid diamonds, they have enough clubs that I want to bid 3NT on xxx rather than suggest something else.

If right-siding is an issue, partner could have bid 2NT instead of 3.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If your partner makes a call over the insufficient bid, she is deemed to have accepted it.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think most people would open if the queen of clubs was a small card. I'd rather not have to play 4NT opposite that.

Though I agree that 4 by responder is the percentage action when the format is not a club game with matchpoint scoring.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe take a poll. I'm bad at guessing what other people might do but pass looks like a logical alternative to me.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Under the given methods North's bidding is fine though I prefer a reverse to show extras. At matchpoints I would pass 3NT with South, take my average plus and move on.

At IMPS I would continue with 4 then 5 over North's 4. North's hand has wastage but also the K and Q which I think is enough to bid one more when South has pushed this hard.

These are close decisions though.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
xx Qxx Axxxx Qxx I definitely would. xxx Qxx Axxx xxx I definitely would not. In between I might or might not.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would bid 3. I think of a 4 bid as inviting partner to bid one more over their 4M and I don't have good enough ODR for that at this vulnerability. I'd like to have a singleton somewhere not a balanced hand with Qxx of their suit.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've never played attitude leads and I always suspect the people who do (claim to) play them are not sharing enough detail so I know as much about their methods as they do. This poll reinforces that view.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
However xx Qxx Axx ?xxxx doesn't look like a hand that should bid 4 at this vulnerability either. Knowledge of the opponents' tendencies would be helpful.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many Wests would have bid something over 1 with 5-4 in the majors, let alone 5-5.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't agree. Laws are a blunt instrument. Sometimes they produce a fair outcome and sometimes they don't. Human beings are perfectly capable of using their judgment to prevent an unfair outcome. When people decide they have no responsibility to do that, I do think less of them.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The losing trick count is for deciding how high to bid when you have a fit, not for deciding whether to open with a balanced hand.
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you open with 11 or more when balanced, Qxx KJxx QJxx Qx is not an opening bid. That is a matter of bridge not system. Determining the value of a hand comes before the application of systemic rules.
Oct. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd prefer to be persuaded by arguments and examples than try everything regardless of whether it seems like a good idea.
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Completely agree with Craig. In a weak NT context the raise to 2 includes 15-16 balanced and responder will be bidding accordingly. To bid more than 3 here would be too much even with AQT4 of clubs.
Oct. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As other people have said, it is more random than other forms of bridge. It combines the disadvantage of IMPs that some hands matter much more than others with the disadvantage of matchpoints that you are at the mercy of the field. It's the worst scoring method for bridge and I avoid it if I can.
Oct. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When opener has five hearts and you have 20 points, the chances of opener having only 14 must go way up.
Oct. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Clubs could easily be better even if you have all the aces. The way the auction started is ok. I would continue with 3 as North planning to bid Blackwood over 4 or 5NT over 3NT.
Oct. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With the correct explanation and East's failure to return a heart, the hand is an open book. East has no more hearts and therefore must have the remaining honours. Just play on trumps and make an overtrick.

The point where declarer lost their mind would never have been reached.
Oct. 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 76 77 78 79
.

Bottom Home Top