Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Phillip Martin
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But if you don't take advantage of taking all that bidding room away from the opponents (i.e., if you're going to assume they guessed right and bid again), what do you gain by pre-empting?
Dec. 23, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see how to make it against 4-1-5-3 on your left. But, if you play that way, don't you risk going down against 3-1-5-4 if you misguess the club queen?
Dec. 23, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you meant to ask “Do you play trump cue-bids?” change my “yes” to a “no.”
Dec. 23, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not willing to give up captaincy, so 2 is my only option.
Dec. 23, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm curious how confident you were that you and Fred were on the same wavelength at trick two. Were you sure he would interpret your club signal as showing or denying the club jack and not as suit-preference (on the basis that whether he can underlead in hearts is the relevant problem)? I happen to agree with you, by the way, but I'm more of an attitudephile than most.
Dec. 22, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I used to play exactly the same as Henry (no surprise). At some point I made one change: After 2-P-P or 2-XX-P, 2 became non-forcing Stayman (literally non-forcing - it means you were passing 2 if partner bid it) and 2 and 2 became forcing with 4-card suits.
Dec. 22, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's frightening how many partners I would be playing 2 redoubled with on K10x opposite 72.
Dec. 21, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was assuming partner would lead low with QJxx. I would lead low myself, especially when I expect 3 1/3 hearts on my right. But I suppose that's a minority view these days.
Dec. 21, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think the fact that partner presumably knows I'm broke changes my signal from attitude to count. What changes is what I can afford to encourage with. If I had a side king, it would be dangerous to encourage, since partner might play me for king third and continue low with QJ92 when he gets in. Since I'm broke, I can afford to encourage with length. (Count, even if that were the agreement, wouldn't even help here, since parity isn't important. Partner needs to distinguish three from five. He doesn't need to distinguish four from five.)
Dec. 21, 2012
Phillip Martin edited this comment Dec. 21, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why wouldn't you want to bid 1 with that hand? If we have a spade fit, I'd like to find it. And it must be safer to bid now rather than later.
Dec. 20, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's why I worded my statement carefully. I almost said “it costs to continue diamonds only when…” But, after thinking of your layout (1), I changed it to “it gains to shift to spades only when…” (Layout (2) did not occur to me, however.)
Dec. 20, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And if you have any doubt who has the ace, it's the player who glanced back at dummy's spot card once he saw the card his partner played.
Dec. 20, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play a low diamond. If partner's queen is a singleton, it's probably right to continue diamonds. If partner's queen is not a singleton, then it gains to shift to spades only when declarer has at least six hearts AND partner has both the ace and jack of spades. (With fewer hearts, declarer doesn't have enough pitches.)
Dec. 19, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Opponents' ability is immaterial. Even if RHO always hops with both Kx and Kxx, playing low from dummy is not an improvement over low to the ten.
Dec. 19, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I still don't get it. As I see it, KQ tight onside is irrelevant (everything works) and KQx offside is irrelevant (nothing works). So there are 6 relevant holdings. West can have Qx, Kx, Qxx, Kxx, KQx, or xxx. Each of the first five holdings occurs 3 times; the last holding occurs once. So there are 16 cases. Low to the ten picks up 10 of them: Qx, Kx, KQx, and xxx onside. How does low from dummy ever pick up more then 10? You must lose to Kx onside and you must lose to at least one of Qxx, Kxx, or KQx onside (depending on how you play if the East plays low). So, even if you pick up all the remaining cases, you are limited to 10 wins, tying the normal play. And I don't see how you can pick up all the remaining cases. For starters, that requires that East always hop with Kxx. Am I missing something?
Dec. 19, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At first glance, it looks to me as if low to the 10 is the better play even if RHO always rises with Kx. But maybe I'm missing something. I'll come back to it when I have more time.
Dec. 19, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A jump shift with a one-suiter typically shows about 7 1/2 playing tricks. The purpose of the bid is to get your slam try off your chest and leave the rest to partner. Despite Yuan's comment above, I think a jump shift should surrender captaincy. This hand, with 8 1/2 playing tricks, is too good for a jump shift in my opinion. When you want to receive information rather than send it, you should take a slower auction. Partner's bids are more informative when you don't jam him. So I would start with 2.
Dec. 18, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's fairly common to agree that, if either of us has bid, a passed hand opposite a pre-empt cannot play the five-level undoubled (which renders North's initial pass immaterial). Under that agreement, you could sell to 4 but not to 5. And, no, I don't think 3 is clear, but I agree with it.
Dec. 18, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Deleted
Dec. 18, 2012
Phillip Martin edited this comment Dec. 18, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are you trying to determine if people play 2 as a minor-suit raise or not? It seems logical. But anyone who is playing something other than Astro over 1NT isn't thinking logically.
Dec. 18, 2012
.

Bottom Home Top