Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Phillip Martin
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What I mean is, if you ask people to bid 7NT if they don't agree with the 4 bid, that prohibits them from answering your problem, that is, saying what they would do, with the 4 bid as given, in the current situation. They can always comment if they disapprove of previous actions. So why structure the problem in such a way that prevents them from answering the question you are really interested in: what they would do now?
July 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the point of the poll is to find out what people would do in this situation, why do you not permit them to answer unless they agree with the 4 bid?
July 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Have an agreement on the meaning of clubs bids if partner acts.
July 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You don’t need a sure thing to double. You just need to improve your expectation. Surely ruffing the opening lead does that.
July 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, we do.
July 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You point out, rightly in my opinion, that the hand is too strong for a 2 overcall. Your proposed solution–to double first as a two-step–is along the right lines. But it runs into the problem that a double renders your subsequent club bids cue-bids. Even a jump in clubs would usually be interpreted as a splinter, not as natural. But pass renders your subsequent club bids natural. Passing followed by bidding clubs (when an immediate 2 would be natural) essentially says “If RHO had opened in a different suit, I would have doubled.” It seems to me that's the message you suggested we need to convey.
July 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I started to say Woolsey-Stewart played that way, Fred. Then I realized I wasn't sure. I knew only that Kit played that way with Eddie. So I changed my comment.
July 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rule 1 is way too subjective for my taste. Rule 2 is less subjective. But even that one needs cleaning up a bit. Do we have to be sure dummy doesn't have an entry? If so, this hand doesn't qualify. The 9 could be an entry. Is it good enough that dummy has no probable entry? If so, we need to define “probably entry” in a way that we can be confident both partners will reach the same conclusion.
July 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did you read any of the previous posts?
July 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even if you don't have an agreement about this position, if declarer drops the queen and jack, leading the 6 should tell partner he can afford to ruff low. I can't imagine leading the six here when you hold the eight.
July 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Different than what? Bidding immediately logically shows a hand where you are concerned that you won’t get a chance to show your hand if you don’t bid now. Passing first shows you had no such concern, presumably because if the auction was uncomfortably high at your next turn, you would have been quite happy to double. Thus passing and bidding shows a better hand in high cards than an immediate overcall. It’s analogous to making a take-out double, then jumping in your suit rather than overcalling immediately.
July 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Funny. I was thinking I could describe my hand better if I pass first.
July 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One missing piece of info that is clearly relevant: which diamonds did declarer play to the first two tricks and which diamond did West play on the third round? If he played incorrectly, East might think declarer was out of diamonds.
July 4, 2018
Phillip Martin edited this comment July 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is often the case that one’s trick-one card would be count in a different suit if the defenders were allowed to discuss the specific deal and agree on a meaning to assign to the signal. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen anyone devise a consistent and unambiguous set of agreements for playing what one might call “surrogate count signals.” If someone did and if the rules were logical (i.e., did not apply in situations where attitude would be more helpful), I would surely adopt them. But attempting to play such signals without clear and unambiguous agreements has no appeal at all. It seems unlikely that each partner would consistently agree on when they should apply on sheer logic.
July 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you missed the 1NT opening, it is probably because you didn't realize partner was the dealer and didn't look to see what his call was. It is unlikely you looked and mistook the 1NT card for a pass card.
July 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The spade ruff is the most likely reason for 5 to fail when 3NT makes. But even then, 3NT could fail. If you are off the spade ace, there are a variety of scenarios where the defense could take five tricks in the majors, sometimes as a result of your misguessing the hearts.
July 4, 2018
Phillip Martin edited this comment July 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
‘Standard” is the cue-bid is forcing until we either reach game or bid and raise a suit. Some players (Kit, for one) prefer to play that you are allowed to cue-bid with a weak hand and equal length in the majors and pass doubler’s bid. But I would never assume to be playing that without a specific agreement.
July 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bidding a game I expect to go down in when there is an alternative game I expect to make seems even weirder.
July 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don’t play the convention. If I did, your rules sound reasonable, except that I would omit the negative double from the list of applicable responses. Since rebids in new suits, whether jumps or not, are limit bids after a negative double, the utility of good-bad 2NT would seem to be reduced. Not eliminated to be sure, but reduced to less than that of a natural 2NT.
July 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Presumably, even without the alert, when I looked to see what partner bid on this round, I would see the 1NT card sitting under the 2 bid. So I don't think the fact that partner opened 1NT is UI. Even so, I don't know what to do about it. At matchpoints, I might assume I had a zero anyway and try a 4 splinter, hoping partner would bid a last train 4 so I could pass it. At IMPs I can't afford to do that.
July 3, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top