Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Will Roper
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 24 25 26 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Enough has been said about who should have said what etc. I personally prefer to focus on the bridge. With that in mind:

1. West might have put back the Q instead of the K to try and obscure East's HCP. Similarly East maybe should encourage to paint a false picture (They might have done, depends on their signals).

2. North should duck the K. Then they can set up a 3 card ending where the show up squeeze saves them from making any guesses about how solid East's 2 bids are as a passed hand.
Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Disclaimer 1: This may be just my experience of these spots.
Disclaimer 2: I hate the fact I am backing pass

Whenever partner has the hand where the “sac” works perfectly they raise me to 6. This combined with the pass over 3 doesn't fill me with hope.
Sept. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Mike S: 1NT+3 looks cold to me (yet to see a killing defence) so i don’t think it matters what South does at this (or any) point.
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Richard. Say West switches to a Spade. We can now set up this ending:

Q
x
-
W
<>
-
Kx
x
-

This is a really good position to be in. Definitely far better than most other options.

Hence a is clearly a more dangerous return from LHO
Aug. 29
Will Roper edited this comment Aug. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Richard imo, the T is better then a heart and a diamond to the T as it gives LHO the opportunity not to return another heart (not good for us).

Assuming we do play the T and they do return a heart (and hearts are 5=2 as it isn't a problem if they aren't), we now should cash a 3rd and play a diamond to the Ace.

We now have the classic finesse or squeeze guess developing!
Aug. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If break what we do at T2 is “mostly” irrelevant.

If we cash and have one club loser then we go for this position:

AQx
-
-
-
<>
x
x
x
-

For this to work RHO cannot have:
a) K
b) 4+ and 4+

If we lead a first takes us down lots of murky avenues with a lot of guessing likely to be involved. It might be better than a (I cba to work out all the options as it is messy), but it is a lot less clear cut and I doubt the %s add up.
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There was a national pairs session several years ago where my partner and I averaged 29% for the first 12 boards and 77% for the second 12.
July 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whilst I like 3=3 (see below) this argument feels redundant to me.

If I have 5-4 then we have a definite major fit after partner bids 3. Why not just bid 4m.
June 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 = I have 3.

Power Acol!

Imagine you have 3415 with a 7 count. You want to offer partner the choice of contracts. Good hands can cue 4m.
June 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Worth knowing what

P-1-2
P-1-3

are. Regardless I think 1NT is probably automatic and the more interesting decision is going to be on the next round over say 3.
June 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Only if you know East is going to cover the 2 with the 5. But an interesting point. If I think that being 4-0 is a reasonable inference then that inference maybe equally available to the defence. I definitely don't think the room would put the J up but that is my gut feel rather than based on anything concrete.
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Craig,

“The only difference is that by playing the A at trick 1, you give West an early opportunity to err by pitching a from 5.“

If West has 5305, you also now have given East a chance to insert the J at T4 and beat the contract legitimately regardless of what you ditch on the A which somewhat ruins the hand.

“And when the K is onside, W will often be able to play a club back at you after winning the A

That really isn’t a problem as you now have trump control. Going down now would be a travesty if you didn’t pitch the A.

If you do ditch the A and West returns a rounded suit at T3 and the K was onside all along then West will be caught in a squeeze. I am no good at names but will take a wild guess at a progressive triple squeeze. I do concede you will go down when are 3-3 and the J is offside though.

Pretty though and I hadn't noticed it previously so thanks :)
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have posted my (unfortunately lengthy) thoughts on the hand and the actual results here:

https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/a-hand-of-many-stories-analysis/

The first and hopefully last hand I feel compelled to write a thesis about.
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My partner and I play a lot of transfers in these spots but simplify them down. This is slightly less optimal for various reasons (mainly when raising partner) but we get far more usage out of it and have 1 symmetrical system for lots of spots.

Atm we play transfers after
1. 1any-(1any)
2. 1any-(2any)
3. (1any)-1any-(1any) (treat like 1)
4. (1any)-1any-(2any) treat like 2)
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Steve :)

What about a small diamond at T2?
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“It might have been more interesting had you offered it as a play problem without your telling us 4-1.”

Hi David. No-one has got remotely close to what I believe the solution(s) to be yet so I am thankful I did reveal were 4-0 :)

In the past when people say: “no comments on the auction” they generally get no comments. Hence why I find this all rather amusing.
June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I find it amusing that every comment so far has nit picked at the auction which I have 0 interest in.

For what it is worth I didn’t play this hand, nor do I know the tempo of the auction. I inserted those comments so readers may take the inference diamonds are 4-0. I believe the problem is too complex/impossible without this info….

It is a weakness of BW I fear. This fixation over critiquing bidding.
June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Quick drop in from work so might have missed something simple:

Think I would cash the K and play a spade to the Ace. Guarantees on any 3-2. I also catch stiff Q in either hand and can trump coup North if they have 3+.

What all the leads and carding mean might help….
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 24 25 26 27
.

Bottom Home Top