Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Fedrick
1 2 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, no, and no. Tom's OP, in essence, was an attempt to define the boundaries of ‘discloseable agreement’. This counter-example is not that.

Personally I'm astonished by the number of people lawyering away on why they shouldn't disclose stylistic tendencies. A simple 2-hour car journey after an event provides a wealth of concrete partnership understandings (“Yeah, I know a club at trick 1 beats it, but as you know I hate doubleton leads / leading low from Axxx / underleading kings / trump leads / etc) that after a while become as valid as anything documented in a written system file.

Declarer is entitled to that info*. As someone or other likes to say, ”tell 'em what you play".

*in general, but not at the critical juncture when the defender being asked the question is put in an impossibly invidious position
Oct. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2NT-3; 3-3 shows four spades, or 5+4. Then

3 = three spades
3NT = two spades
4X = four spades, max
4 = four spades, nothing special
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of us has the polarities wrong. From where I am sitting West has just followed instructions (puppeted to 3C) while his partner 2-stepped to 3NT, showing clubs along the way. No invitations involved, raise or otherwise.
March 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Absent UI…

a) West has seen East show a raise to 3NT with 6+ clubs and some reason for concern (presumably, spade worry)
b) East has seen West show a minimum 1NT overcall with five(+) clubs

Since we are told that East had four clubs (opposite the presumed 5+ card suit of West), I don't think that Pass is an LA - East will always bid either 3NT or 3S (which likely will fetch 3NT from West at pairs). So I allow East's actions.

As for West's actions, we don't know his hand but it would depend on whether pulling 3NT is a plausible choice. Passing 3NT would be automatic with either a double spade stopper or a club fit (e.g HHx) sufficient to suggest that East's six clubs are running; lesser holdings are more problematic.
March 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Terrific! I’ll give you the account details of the escrow account where you need to wire me $10 million of cash collateral, and we’re good to go. Thanks for the trade!
June 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great (and unexpectedly subtle) question. See also

- ‘extreme-event’ insurance
- volatility smiles
- why crowdfunding works

As has been stated here several times, the theoretical (risk-neutral) probabilities are essentially irrelevant. I teach mathematical finance for a living; my discussion of the pricing of credit tranches always starts with the ‘Elvis trade’:

Suppose we all agree that the chance that Elvis is still alive (he died in 1977, but there are some true believers out there) is one in 10^8. Here's the trade: if he is found alive and well, you pay me $10 million. In return, I will pay you 50 cents today (5x the fair number!). Who wants to play?

(Replace ‘50 cents’ by ‘0.09%’, and ‘$10 million’ by ‘credit protection on the super-senior tranche of the CDX’, and you understand why AIG met a grisly end in 2008. If only your book had come out in time for Joe Cassano to have read it).
June 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's pretty common in the UK. Standard count is slightly more natural if you systemically lead middle from xxx - playing upside-down, your second card in the suit is either a lie (top of the two remaining) or misleading (suggests your lead was from two-low).
May 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
MH writes “if we accept the premise that each approach will generate roughly equivalent ‘thin making games reached’ and ‘games missed’, then…”

But this premise is manifestly false.

Call ‘pass with light invites, move with heavy invites’ strategy A, and ‘invite with light invites, bid game with heavy invites’ Strategy B, and imagine the auction starts 1S-2S-?.

If opener has a heavy invite: A invites and B just bids game.
If opener has a light invite: A passes, and B invites.

There are no scenarios where A gets to a ‘thin making game’ but B doesn't; there are also zero scenarios where B misses a game that A bids.

The dichotomy is this:
Strategy B bids more games, and (possibly) makes more games by virtue of lower information leakage; but
Strategy A goes minus less often, by avoiding more bad games and by staying low in light-invites-opposite-rejection scenarios

I suspect that the choice is conditioned largely by the relative amount of imps vs. matchpoints one plays.
Sept. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm convinced this is the wrong way round. Especially at teams, the ‘heavy’ invite has already bid game. So invites will be skinny, and acceptances should require a maximum.

I've always had this understanding (it's explicitly specified in my notes), am I missing something?
Sept. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4H would be a self-agreeing spade slam-try, in the absence of any specific other agreement. I think it *should* be a transfer (weak or very strong, with a direct 4S being a non-forcing mild slam-try), but that requires an explicit discussion.
Sept. 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I will come clean, in an attempt to bring this thread to an end (but the phone lines remain open for those who wish to eviscerate me after what I'm about to write).

I was South, and bid 4S (if anyone cares, it's board 19 of the Monday night pairs at Wimbledon Bridge Club, www.bridgewebs.com/wimbledon).

My LHO (a top-class player) thought 4S was unacceptable, my partner (also a very fine player) opined that he thought it was ok. I was quite troubled by my action, hence the post.

In my view…

Absent the UI, my plan was always to try and transfer to spades to right-side things (partner thwarted that plan) and then just play 4S (I might possibly have had a re-think if partner had shown a super-accept).

I personally think that passing 3NT (partner is pretty much end-played into bidding it with as little as Hx in hearts) is nuts with a concentrated black two-suiter and a stiff diamond. Many here both agree and disagree with that assessment.

Likewise, I was never going to bid 4C. I don't have “4 card support for partner's minor”, he could still have two-low. I think the chances of a club slam opposite a likely weak NT are slim, and even slimmer if you condition on the “knowledge” that there is no spade fit. This is matchpoints in a moderate-at-best field, looking for obscure high-level minor-suit contracts is pretty unattractive.

How do things change after the UI? Nothing has happened to change my assessment of 3NT, 4H wouldn't be a re-transfer it would be a self-agreeing spade slam-try (which I don't have), and 4C (a new suit at the 4 level) should probably deliver 5-5 as Kit says above, which I also don't have.

.

So I bid 4S, as I would have done with no UI (or behind screens). I'm still not convinced that any other action is clearcut, but I'm perfectly happy to be told I'm wrong.
Sept. 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe he won't, who knows (he's 3226). But if he does move there is mostly only upside (6C and 6S are both cold).
Sept. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks everyone for a an enlightening discussion.

For what it's worth… of South's various calls
4S by S scores +480
4H will lead to either 5C or 6C by N (taking 12 or 13, depending on the lead)
4C will lead to +420 or +920
Passing 3NT will score +520 (East makes his natural lead) or -100 (East guesses to lead a diamond from Qxxx)

Working out the weighted average result as per 12C1c will certainly be a challenge.
Sept. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
All true and eminently sensible, but the problem hasn't quite gone away.

4S scores +480 (on the same lucky lie of the cards that allows 6C to make). If I understand you, you are suggesting that NS get a score of MIN(+480, probability-weighted avg of +420 and +920).

How does a director determine that weighted average? More peer polls?
Sept. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, in that scenario North (with Axxxxx clubs, thinking he's facing a club slam-try) may drive to slam. 6C is very fortuitous but cold as the cards lie, and +920 will be a complete top.

So do you rule that South must bid 4C, but that North is then required to bid no more than 5C? Or do you award a weighted (how?) average of the matchpoint scores for +420 and +920?
Sept. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I could have done that.

On a separate issue (and I'm not having a dig, I'm genuinely interested), when did ‘biased’ lose its ‘-ed’? Or alternatively, when did ‘bias’ go from being a noun to an adjective? I keep seeing comments in print like “Fox/CNN are bias news outlets”, or “X is a bias journalist”, and at first I just assumed it was simply a typo but it doesn't seem that way any more.
Sept. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm sorry they were so obvious. As a matter of interest, do you also play 2H and 2S as natural single-suiters opposite 2D = D + major?
Jan. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It doesn't quite “all work”, that's why I started this thread. In your schema, what does advancer do with a 5422 8-count? Or 3622?
Jan. 24, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, there is ‘further discussion’ - the explicit agreement is that all advances are pass-or-correct.

But on reflection in the car going home it was clear that this simple agreement lacks some definition - does partner's 2H therefore guarantee both majors (so I can remove to 2S on a 3-card fragment)? What sort of hand would ever bid 2S? What is partner supposed to do having passed over a NT with AKx Jxxxxx xx Jx?

So maybe our agreement is the wrong one and we should play that 2M is just a natural 1-suiter here, not pass-or-correct; but I don't believe that is mainstream. Just interested to see what other people play.
Jan. 24, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So hand type 3 (5422) is impossible, yes? That hand just has to pass 2C and hope for the best (and initiate rescue manoeuvres if it gets hit)?
Jan. 24, 2017
1 2 3
.

Bottom Home Top