All comments by Will Roper
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Zimmermann - Schwartz
Gupta - Fireman
Cayne - Verbeek
Lall - Seligman

Thanks in advance :-)
March 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At MP: 4
At Teams: 5 or 6
March 3, 2018
Will Roper edited this comment March 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like to play over 2-(P)-?:

2L = NF (constructive if Vuln)
2NT = or a GF bid that doesn't have anything else to do
3 =
3 =
3 = ; INV
4 = ; ST

2-3M = Natural; Highly INV

I also play kit over 3 level pre-empts

But my pre-empts are somewhat bonkers.
March 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is very much a style thing. I have seen all of 2 through 3 touted as the best.

See - https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/response-to-fourth-suit-forcing-take-2/?cj=460826#c460826

P.S I prefer to play Sinvite so am somewhat forced in this department to bid 3 = Stop ask with your 2nd example hand.
March 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes
March 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I should also note that I may have phrased the above poorly. I have nothing against Roger and no vested interest in this hand, nor am I trying to rile/annoy anyone.

I am very much a bridge player 1st, human 2nd and director 3rd. I am simply trying to provide my slightly different viewpoint.
March 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure what you mean Steve.

My line of play was 9, Q, K. Small to the Q. 2 spades ditching the from hand, ruff, , ruff high, draw trumps, A for 11 tricks.

The A is almost definitely onside given the bidding and the defence up to this point.
March 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I was an impartial TD (god help us all) judging whether you were capable of finding the line of play. I have the following information:

“E played the Q so I didn't need the squeeze any more. The finesse gave me my contract.”

- Yes, you have “guessed” the J but you misplayed the contract when the Q turned up. You made an assumption when there is an almost 100% option available. I don't know if the DR is easier or harder than the squeeze but it does show that you didn't give the hand 100% TLC.

You also initially said:

“I make it on a squeeze”

- There are two different squeezes available. This tells me you hadn't considered the multiple possibilities and don't fully understand the problem with the hand. You follow up with:

“After K, I was just going to cross with a and play to K”

- This is a slight misplay. If East has the J = 3 off. Drawing all of the trumps not only might save you 300 but also forces East to make some revealing discards.

In your favour is that you seem committed to West having the J and therefore it is unlikely you will execute the wrong squeeze. All of the above (from a neutral perspective) just would make me wonder whether you would pull off the right line at all or are trying to bluff me (the director). All in all 2/3 is probably fair from the perspective of disallowing the Q. However, I wouldn't have disallowed the Q so this is all somewhat moot.
March 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
West also have A+1.5 tricks. His partner is meant to have 1+ trick for a vulnerable 2, and your slam try was v mild given that you essentially signed off next. If I held Txxxx, Axx, KTxx, x. I would probably double regardless of opps solidity. This contract is not making overtricks/being XX and is easily going for 500 a lot. Risk reward is heavily in my favour.

I therefore doubt that the J was a major decision maker for them in the double.
March 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a valid point and I would be interested to know what the exact cards were.

It is worth noting that South has carved the hand if the J is offside. There is a dummy reversal available which is far better than the 50% option he took.

The fact he located the J may harm his case as much as it helps it!

Edit: I don't know if it is called a dummy reversal or DR+Mortons fork or something else. I have never been good at knowing what these things are called.
Feb. 28, 2018
Will Roper edited this comment Feb. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Julian is referring to FH's hand (Kxxx, xx, KQJTxx, x)
Feb. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So overall feeling is I agree with you that this is bonkers and you should feel aggrieved.

Specific thoughts:
- You are never going down in slam surely? How were others going down?

- Have a lot of empathy for your opponents in that they don't have written agreements. I expect many top pairs don't for this/these spots.

- Don't know how the director plans for you to get to 6. 1 of you has shown their hand almost and the other has a minimum for their initial bidding. Possible but to say you are going to get there 50% of the time is a massive overstatement.
Feb. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What do you bid John?
Feb. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First time for everything ;-)

Some people I can imagine play 2 over FSF as nebulous (2524 or 3514; minimum) so whilst raising 1-1-2 on 3 is probably decisive in favour of 2 = 2, the lack of it does not necessarily imply the negative inference.
Feb. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think 2 is pretty standard in the modern game. MGB used to drill this sequence into us as juniors.

It also somewhat depends on whether you raise 1-1-2 with 3514; 11-14.
Feb. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not convinced that you have lost out here. Not in regard to your “squeezing skills” at any rate.

Imagine East ducks the Q. Your following line has to be 4 ditching a and lead a small . Anything else I think will see the contract fail. West if competent will duck the A and now you face a guess to who has the J. Your line will go 2 down I think if you guess wrong and make if you are right.

So if you assume perfect defence from opponents and you rule 50% of each that is an aggregate of -9IMPs.

A more interesting area is whether the play should be changed.
Feb. 28, 2018
Will Roper edited this comment Feb. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I personally wouldn't rule so 3NT-1, but understand that it is a problem spot. Most of my reasons have been expressed above so I won't repeat them. The only small point worth adding is whilst North could have 2Aces that would give him something like Axxxx, Ax, Qxxx, xx. I don't think this is very likely as a XX (then 3NT).

From a bridge perspective, what do people think of West's double of 2? I personally wouldn't, as my style over Intermediate 2s is conservative unless I have shortage in their suit. Also can West ever foresee this situation and return a low diamond?
Feb. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with your moral. For me, I like to have agreements in these spots only if I am in a v reg partnership and also that have symmetry to other sequences. Hence the 1NT interference structure as it is essentially remembering one method for 2 spots rather than two. We actually apply Rubensohl (or Transfer Leb) all over the place. I.e we know one method and apply it to a lot of situations. This just happens to be one of them. It may not be completely optimal but we don't forget which is more important to me.
Feb. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Somewhat depends on the hand but there is a preference to 2M as partner will read it better. If I have doubleton in their suit I quite like 2oM though sometimes
Feb. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4 over 2? Probably the same as what you play over a weak 2 opening…

My partnership agreement is to treat this spot like 1NT-(2) so for us 4 = minors ST, 4NT = minors no ST. We also play Rubensohl etc.

Ftr I have never been convinced by the X/Pass = Points or lack of them. Seems like a very strong clubby thing to do.

Latter part of the auction you are somewhat fixed it seems
Feb. 26, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top