Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Scott Needham
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Methods matter: 4thSF? Walsh? I'd like to be playing XYZ; continuations will differ; after O's support, if given, with your second hand, 3N and O will bid again. Would R bid this way with 3-3-4-3 or 3-2-4-4? Is 4 a slam inv opposite a min game force (apparently not if given hand 2; for me it would be)?. Unfortunately, lots of possibilities and little info as to methods, so necessarily a vague situation. But:

Aside from the point that you've now changed your assessment of P's hand (to which I was responding), then I personally would avoid 3NT in the first instance and bid the concentration b/c I'd expect some 4-(3-1)-5, 4-(2-1)-6, or 4-2-2-5 (failure, noted above to bid NT), so with all those primes I'd want to see whether I get the raise. O should invite slam opposite any responding minimum game force, and if R holds your second hand, we're still odds on for 6N. I think your first hand is a good candidate for the 3N rebid, softish with H cards; many would bid 3N with your 2nd hand, and I still think 4N is appropriate.

Sept. 6, 2013
Scott Needham edited this comment Sept. 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why didn't I call 4N insted of 4 just in case paartner holds xx KJxx AKxxx Kx?
Sept. 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What action if the major holdings were reversed?
Aug. 30, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What is your favorite mystery sub-genre (noir/private eye, police procedural, whodunnit, courtroom, historical, etc);

Who is your favorite mystery author;

Who is your favorite protagonist's sidekick?

Also, from reading all of the comments onsite regarding complex ethical issues, it seems to me that the bridge legal structure would benefit most from establishing some firm meta-rules, such as your recent insistence that ‘those who create the problem should bear the burden’, in order to constrain interpretation. What do you think?
Aug. 23, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's difficult to find the cheese on this auction type. Most developed stuff I've seen is on Pavlicek's site, where 3 is always “bid 3N if you have a stopper in the overcall suit,” else natch, but systems on to the extent they can be on following the intervening call.

EDIT: Should have said he also advocates negX, important piece.
July 28, 2013
Scott Needham edited this comment July 29, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“And is there some simple rule that partnerships can use to define when 2N is good-bad?”

Anyone want to start another topic? I would like to see some analysis, having once set out to catalog seqs in which one could play GB and realizing that it is a truly huge set.
July 17, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because some “above 3N” calls are alertable when either R's first or O's 2nd bid, one of our local directors likes to state this rule as ‘when you are in a power auction, calls above 3N are not alertable, but require explanation at the end of the auction.’
July 9, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems to me that the distinction has to do with expectations – JTs have become “universal” conventions and folks expect transfers in an uncontested auction and in contested auctions over 1N-(X) or 1N-(2 artificial). A conventional treatment, however, such as Leb or transfer Leb, is not nearly as universal and should require the alert procedure. And range should be part of the explanation. Similarly, didn't ACBL recently require 2 and 2N as part of 4-Way “Transfers” to be alerted as “ suit” or “ suit” b/c of the proliferation of using the in-between step as either “like” or “don't like”?
July 7, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm probably the last one to the party – not unusual – but it seems as if the 1 bidder's hand is displayed at http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-1878/#comments.

Doesn't leave much for the 2NT call here….
July 4, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yuan: As you say there are other constructions, but the point of this reply, here, right now, is that I got suckered in by your claim of the right to lead and your choice of a : Partner leads Q and sayanora, down 3 at least on most constructions.
July 3, 2013
Scott Needham edited this comment July 3, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing 2NX? In view of all the bidding, I wouldn't be surprised to see E with a devalued SNT, like AQT KT9 KJT Qxxx and W with x xxx xxxx KJxxx Everyone has communication problems; N-S will end up leading into E's tenaces; E-W have the only fit. N's hand needs a couple of Ts to make me feel optimistic about a bloodbath.
July 3, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North: AQJTxx 9 xxx T9x
South: Kxx QT8xx xx Qxx
June 25, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
N led from T9x, and S held 3-5-2-3.
June 24, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You might consider that G2NT allows Us to find our 2nd, possibly sacrifice-oriented, suit immediately in situations where They are more likely to be bidding at the 3 level. Also, (per Marshall Miles, I think) playing G2NT, Responder/Advancer completes the relay only with a good hand.
June 24, 2013
Scott Needham edited this comment June 24, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Over 2 it was 3; over 1 it was either 2 or 3, depending. I polled some players, and when it was 1-(3), 6 wasn't reached, but this is intended solely as a play problem.
June 24, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. Some version of this line was the consensus after about 30 minutes of chewing it over on the ride home.
June 24, 2013
4NT
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This: “We don't want to be too auction-specific here, so what might make sense as principles?”
June 21, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like these combo fit-plus-RKCB bids. What response to 2N puts into the picture?

June 18, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess I would also, just as a slow down warning – understanding, I hope, that 5 is probably POC, 5 is probably extra D length, and others are cues? Of course, there is a continuum of “wasted values” layouts, and 4N here would create other problems. Some of these layouts would miss slam, many would not come close to making slam with this R hand – but would be cold opposite a normal expectation slam invite. Interesting deal.
June 18, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Stu, what if O's hand is AK QJT9x Kx AKQx? S/he tries to stop at 5, but can't.

The problem with this hand is that there is no intelligent way to proceed unless O learns of the void and can push; I still think that R's hand is iffy for any unilateral decision to make a slam push – past 5, for instance – b/c O could be loaded in and b/c R is really not strong enough opposite many possible hands for O.
June 18, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top