Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Phil Markey
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not going to bid 2 spades with that either, but sure, if you choose pass you are going to miss game sometimes.

I could come up with hands where if you invite partner should accept and you will end up in a crappy game or partner properly declines and you go negative playing at the 3 level. I think example hands are of use when considering the problem. It should be mundane to observe that if you are not sometimes missing a good game in an auction like this you are not viewing the problem correctly. Completely trite to say that bridge is not a precise game.
March 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think its clear that overcalling 2 spades with KQJxxx x KQJx Ax is a horrible choice.

The best way to make the numbers work in this general position is to pass or bid game. The hands that are going to have positive equity for an invitation are going to be less common than a mantra of “bid every light game” makes them appear.

If I invite then I don't want to do it with a marginal hand and partner then to accept with a marginal hand. I want partner to bid game over an invite with anything he isn't embarrassed about. It might depend on your style but for my preferred style this is a marginal invitational hand.
March 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I might not of opened 1 heart as East - I am bidding 3NT as West.
March 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“So you don't make game tries after 1♠-2♠?”

Obviously not the sequence we are discussing. A big win playing an artificial 2 clubs after a 1 of a major opening is surely playing 2 of the major rather than 3 of the major. It seems weird to me that you would have any sequence that allows you to play 3 of the major after the artificial 2 club response.

I rarely invite after 1S-2S. Not vulnerable I never invite after 1S-2S by showing something about my hand because I doubt there is any equity in such a bid. If I am wrong and there is some equity in a genuine long/short suit trial when not vulnerable I still wouldn't find it. I don't trust myself sufficiently to recognise that hand when I hold it. Practice with this method makes me good at “guessing”.
March 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play 2 of the other major over 2 clubs as natural, accepting the limit raise and mandatory when holding 4 cards in the other major. That might result in what has been awkwardly called “information leak” but does provide definition for other auctions.

I don't think there is much equity in stopping in the right fit at the 2 level when you have close to game values so playing 2 of the other major as natural and not accepting the limit raise doesn't appeal.

I agree that what you do over 2 clubs should as a primary consideration cater for partner holding a game forcing hand with clubs. I dislike playing 2 diamonds over 2 clubs as everything except an invitation though. Most of the time responder has the invitational hand. I am wary about any invitational bid, inviting over an invite - YUK.
March 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I did not mean to imply that it is a worthless discussion.

I think you can choose to make it a difficult problem. I did mean to imply that you should ignore technicalities and tell your opponents what you know they want to know. If you catch yourself contemplating the laws and wondering what you are obliged to tell your opponents and in what manner you should do it you are probably doing it wrong.

“9-14 balanced/semi-balanced. He won't have 9-10 without a 5+ suit in this seat and he will upgrade about 70% of the 14 counts, and all 14's with a 5 card suit”. Is an example. The second sentence changes for all 4 types of vulnerability and seat.

If they ask for more detail I could say a bit more. If they ask about possible singletons or 5 card majors or exact shapes I would have a further sentence or 2 about our policy on those topics (the basic policy statements are disclosed on the card). Any further query about shape would be interpreted as asking about all these things. The fact I didn't mention those things in my first 2 sentences is not really a failure to disclose. It is utterly implicit that those additional things are things I might have rules about.
Feb. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this is a classic can't see the wood for the trees scenario. High card points are high card points so if you open all 3 of the example hands your announcement starts with 13-17. You then follow up with a further sentence or 2 at most to explain.

I play a 6 point range for a 1NT opening with more upgrading and downgrading rules than probably 90% of serious pairs and have no difficulty in explaining this to my opponents in the manner described. Perhaps more importantly I can't recall an opponent ever complaining about the disclosure provided. Wellll - Tim Bourke did once say it was cheating when I mentioned the range in the pre-alerts - he didn't complain about any actual cheating when it was opened and further explained though.

If you are misleading your opponents or getting bogged down in the exact language then you are either overthinking the problem or crap at providing proper disclosure.
Feb. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suspect Bobby would of been a 3 heart bidder this hand. I don't recall him being a prolific doubler. He was commonly just writing a “+” in front of his scores. I think the Bobby advice is better understood as don't defend at the 1 and 2 levels or even more clearly, bid ferociously in the part score battles.

Bobby would of been a big threat in any field playing for MP's. Fearless, unsophisticated bidding with a keen eye for value backed up by world class card play is what I remember.
Feb. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I was growing up in the game Bobby Richman only required a warm body to sit opposite him to win every major MP event in Oz. Eventually I got to know him well enough to ask him what the secret was - “Get to the 3 level and then defend”.
Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think redoubling to show something is bad. The openers side are in front in these auctions courtesy of having a fairly strict opening range. They are just going to blow their equity showing something with a redouble.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I have considered playing reversed methods, especially over weak NT. Then double shows approximately a weak NT (often off-shape), 2♣ shows a strong hand (possibly a strong NT), and higher bids show not so strong unbalanced hands.

This is obviously worse than doubling if you have a strong hand, but the weak NT hands are much more common.”

I feel your pain. I think your idea about 2C to show strong hands is a bit tortured. I have come to the view that you have to pay off the weak 1NT in order to optimise a defence to it.

Give away the annoying times you have 2 balanced hands in the 11-14 sort of range and you make game and adopt strict ranges for your doubles. That said many weak 1NT pairs have horrible “running” methods such that crappy defences to it kind of work and the myth that playing a weak 1NT will result in too many big penalties continues to get peddled.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Do you actually claim that if 1N opener XX with every hand, reopening with about 11-14 balanced becomes totally ineffective or just less effective?”

I think it becomes unprofitable. In a rubber game I think Zia would become your cash cow if you played the methods I suggest in this position. In practice I think he would change methods.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is some additional system to playing an automatic redouble. It is not going to cost much to have agreements that mean responder is not going to pass a 1NT opening without enough values to sit a redouble or a hand that has an easy run.

A balanced 11 count under a balanced 15-17 does not have equity to enter the auction. The reason doubling with 11+ balanced in the passout wins is primarily because opener automatically passes and playing a close 1NT doubled contract as opposed to a close 1NT redoubled contract favours the defence.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The other defender's typical hand given the passout seat showed 11+ balanced will be about 6-9 balanced. The automatic redouble removes the comfortable option of pass with that hand.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am familiar with this style of double and I think it is a winner but only because almost no-one plays a suitable defence to it. Anything other than an automatic redouble by opener after a balancing seat double of any 1NT opening is spewing imps in my view.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2C 4H P P
5N P 6C P
6D 6H 6S P
?

Is what I saw to be precise. 6S is at least 4 spades and I doubt The Colonel bids 6H's with a diamond void.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Should E-W have gotten into the bidding?”

East passed an 11 count as the dealer. E/W are losing imps this hand given the choice to pass in first seat as a simple auction would have them play 2 spades or defend at the 3 level.

The arguments in favour of passing with the East hand are nearly always based on ensuring a more precise constructive auction and that is an easy argument to understand. Harder to see is the effect of conceding bidding territory to your opponents.
Jan. 20
Phil Markey edited this comment Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the definition of a wild gambling action is that a player risked a very bad score with a reasonable expectation of getting a very good score then it is contrary any sensible view of the nature of the game that the player should be punished for taking such an action. Making a distinction between a gambling action and a wild gambling action in this context lacks reason.

If the definition of a wild gambling action is that a player risked a very bad score without a reasonable expectation of getting a very good score then most likely the player just made a serious error.

The issue raised in this post arises not because the word “wild” has been omitted but because the word gambling has been used without a proper understanding of what that word means in the context of a bridge game.

I think a proper intention of the law in question would be reflected by dropping the reference to a gambling action “wild” or otherwise and perhaps specifying that “serious error” be judged subjectively.

The failure to understand “gambling” has a long history for law makers of many shapes and sizes. The earliest example I know of was in the 16th century when Henry the eighth made a similar error trying to legislate a distinction between games of skill and games of chance. The aim of Henry's legislation was to get his archers to practice more rather than get pissed up at the local tavern playing dice games. I don't know a lot about Henry but I think historians agree he was a narcissistic, syphilis ridden bloke who made a lot of mistakes and certainly had bigger issues than regulating games. The WBF don't have those excuses.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barb's line makes 12 with the heart guess as opposed to not ruffing a diamond before drawing trumps which suffers from the entry issue.

It's a typical Barb hand. Bidding or playing the cards it is routine for her to transform complex into simple.
Dec. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We should probably stop and simply agree that there is marginal value for an invitational bid over a 1NT opening and that having a 5 card suit is clutch, but I hate to go last.

Every descriptive bid has a higher transaction cost than pass. I agree that David Burn is wise to limit that cost but when you pass rather than invite you will always get additional equity from the lack of information given to the player in the pass out seat.

I listened to a world class player recently explaining that in the pass out after a 15-17 1NT opening it was auto to bid with 9+ points as long as you weren't 4333 or maybe 4432 (maybe he was referencing a matchpoint game to go as low as that but the same principle applies to IMPs). No such need to “stretch” when responder bids and you know you are going to get another shot at the auction.

When you have a possible invitation and choose pass and the pass out seat takes action you are long term getting a better score than when it is passed out. This is particularly so when like me you structure your competitive auctions to exact full advantage for a “almost never invite” or “invite rarely but always heavy” style.
Nov. 27, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
.

Bottom Home Top