Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Steve Moese
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4, under duress. Prefer 2 initially, agreeing with Chris and Rainer. Don't think the pointed suit disparity is worth a murky auction.
Sept. 16, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Could partner be a little as Q109x xxx KQ(x) AKx(x)? Looks like at least 4 defensive tricks. Looks like a penalty double. It really comes down to whether double is worth 800 for us or not. I'm not sure we're taking 7 tricks from this hand…
Doubler will be on lead. A major will lose us a ruff (E pitches a on the long ). A low is unlikely. 1+3+2 or 2+2+2 might be the limit for the defense… Ugh - this is a toughie. I don't think partner doubles with Q109x xxx Kx(x)x AKx(x) do you?
Sept. 15, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What is a min jump to 4 here? xx KQ10xxx xxx Kx ? I would surmise any 7-loser w/6+ s opposite partner's 3-card support. Now, what does partner likely have for the double? Would be great to know if the xx was 3-card support or more Rosenkranz-like (Hx). If the latter we can envision a 4=3=2=4 or 4=3=3=3 hand. If the former then 3=3=3=4 or 3=3=2=5 are candidates. These shapes seem to be in line for a penalty double of 4. We should stand to set 4 1-3 tricks maybe 4. (0-1 s likely, 1-2 , 1-2 , 1-2 not to exceed 5-6 total).

The problem is, I have extras. My hand is a 6-loser that adjusts to 5 with a good 7-card trump suit in a 10 card fit.

Has anyone thought of slam? Partner needs A, KQ, AK and might have the K/Q on this bidding (hence 1 and not 1NT).

Since I can be weak, doubling should show extras.

Since partner never has the perfect hand for me, I will take my larger plus and bid the vulnerable game - D/O ratio pushes me there. There's always a chance partner gets to bid six with thought and inspiration.
Sept. 15, 2012
Steve Moese edited this comment Sept. 15, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The OP is broad, occuring in previously GF and previously non-GF sequences. FSF is a convention for prior NGF sequences. However playing 2/1, 4th suit takes on different meanings.

Since the pair is already in a GF, some play 1-P-2-P-2-P-2 as Natural. Some play it as the inability to bid NT because of the lack of a full stopper. Some play it as extra values and slammish.

Methinks the natural meaning for 2 is not alertable, but the “Looking for a stopper” meaning is. I suppose the slammish style would arguably not be, but I confess I am unsure. If 2N is conventional (Good Minors) then 2 is burdened with other than natural meanings and an alert should be made.

So, I vote “Alert” because the meaning given is not natural in either prior GF or NGF auctions.
Sept. 15, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted other.

We seem to be geographically challenged.

Currently there are 167000 or so members in USA & Canada. France and the Netherlands exceed that, and all of Europe has more than twice the registered tournament players we do. I have to assume the rest of the world has us beat re: number of bridge players by a long shot.

I also assume bridge at home is more popular the tournament bridge by the same 150x factor (25MM HHs / 167000 registered players) globally.

I am unclear that Garozzo and Belladonna are less well known than Crane or Goren or Jack Marx, i meant to say George Rapee, no Sam Stayman. I am culturally disadvantaged but presume C. C. Wei would be known to millions we don't see every day.

Perhaps we should rethink our assumptions. This question is compelling for reasons the OPer might not have considered….

I wonder who we might be missing - simply because their light hasn't shone on our screen (yet).

BTW - please don't use internet metrics for measuring population awareness - The internet is not accessible to everyone.

To the OP: The question is not who has made the most important contributions to the game or who is the best player in history – simply, what do you think is the most recognizable name in bridge, worldwide?

The question as posted requires multiple answers - the best player can be very different from the most recognizable name and different from th person who has contributed most to the game we all love…who knows, decades from now Fred Gitleman might be the biggest name in that internet game called, what was it? Bridge?
Sept. 13, 2012
Steve Moese edited this comment Sept. 13, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, xxx AQxx x AQxxx gives poor play for 6, but would be an acceptable minimum opposite a 1-level overcall at these colors. Making 5 should be pretty good odds. I would expect our HCP to fall between 20-23 (we don't rate to have more than 23 on this auction).

For 6 consider xxx AQxx x AKxxx or perhaps Qx AQxx - AQxxx.

I think your question has surfaced three issues we should try to address:

1) How strong should a splinter bid be opposite a 1-level Vulnerable overcall.
2) How can we find out about secondary cards after partner makes a splinter bid? Clearly working side cards make the difference between 5 and 6. Maybe a splinter is too clumsy?
3) Should splinters by advance be used to define how high we should compete or are they better aimed at finding slams.

I do not claim to have the answers here but my preferences are:
1) Hxx HHxx x HHxxx is safe. Note this is a 5-loser. I think a working minimum is a 6-loser.
2) Tough one - not sure pard would know to bid on if we initiate RKB then bid 5.
3) Since we give away so much strength/shape info with a splinter, perhaps we should simply bid 4/5s when competing and save splinters when we expect to declare the final contract.

Unfortunately we have no last train option between s and s.
Sept. 9, 2012
Steve Moese edited this comment Sept. 9, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was too at first Bob, but then I realized that partner would not necessarily make a move with the right 7-8 HCP (which I expect them to hold more than half the time). Partner knows to make a move with substantially more opposite 3N.
Sept. 9, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Our difference of opinion: I agree your minimum IFF opposite an opening hand. However opposite a 1-level overcall the splinter has to be sounder by a King.
Sept. 9, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it's called “type-lexia”!! Edited the oops! Thanks!
Sept. 9, 2012
Steve Moese edited this comment Sept. 9, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Suspect xxx AQxx x AQxxx as a minimum, since North could act on as little as Kx KJ10xx xx xxxx. Less would elicit 4 directly.
Sept. 9, 2012
Steve Moese edited this comment Sept. 9, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since 1 can be on 8 HCP (or less) I have to assume partner's splinter shows an opening bid with shape (more?). Our SST is 2 so I expect 12 tricks on this bidding (HCP 22+). Let's use 4 to see if we have the keys….Said differently, my 7 losers and partner's 5-loser should make 12 tricks…
Sept. 8, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure I would find the will to bid past 3N (blame transfer), but would probably do it. I expect my partner to be 5422 (5431 less likely after 3N). My 8 HCP have 6 working, and I will score more tricks for our side in s than in 3N.

As to which major to play first, I would probably choose s and hope I can lead to my single K early (my only other entry) - before they count my hand. I suppose the Q doesn't show up at trick 1 or 2….

Rolling back the bidding, I like 4 a bit more than 3N. Caters to playing in a 5-2 fit in either major. I think 4 over 3 misdescribes my hand too much.

However, the way you play ‘em I wouldn’t pay attention to my bidding musings!!! Well done.

Sept. 8, 2012
Steve Moese edited this comment Sept. 8, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From another conversation: I bid 4 to elicit 4 from partner after which I can bid 6 and partner can correct to NT, rightsiding that contract. If partner rebids 4 I will simply raise to 5, again suggesting a concern about s. Slammmish. While I have s, I am happy to support s unless partner collaborates in another direction. In all cases, I know partner knows I have 5s.
Sept. 8, 2012
Steve Moese edited this comment Sept. 8, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I originally doubled to keep s in focus - however partner's 2 call says they don't have'em. I think 3 is right. Changing my vote…If pard is really 4=6 in the reds then s/he can bid 3 over my 3 rebid. Will support s next…
Sept. 3, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't the key that partner rebid 5 and not 4?
Sept. 3, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Stayman first. Then over 2/ raise to 4. Over 2 bid 4 delayed Texas. 7 losers and an 8+ card Major fit - we got game!
Aug. 25, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think East needs to double. Not sure the goal is 3N here but 2X sounds tasty.
Aug. 22, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(agreeing Lynn and Phillip M.)…and South surely cannot overcall 1 - so does not have a good 4-card suit…Thanks for the poll Mike!
Aug. 22, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Polly, nice article!
To your questions
on 1) I would bid 2 as well, and would expect partner to raise.
on 2) I would bid 2 either showing or anticiating a limit raise. 3 showing a constructive raise would be an underbid with your holding.
Aug. 20, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hey Rob, great article! Keep 'em coming. I really like your focus on defense. We could use more examples like these! Well done!
Aug. 20, 2012
.

Bottom Home Top