You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice logic and Norman S agrees with you fwiw. The problem with this logic in reality was most tables were pre-empting 3 and we have an easy 9-10 tricks in 3NT.
July 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nope although opps were juniors :-)

Nor is this a poll for a ruling as most of mine seem to be these days. This was my hand and came up two years ago.
July 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Personally, the most important things to me about this spot are 2M = Natural and 3M = SPL with both minors.

Fitting that around a Rubensohl structure gives you:

DBL = Values
2/2M = Natural; NF
2NT =
3 =
3M = SPL with at least 5-4 minors
July 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 =
3 =

For me personally
May 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On hand 2 you are ofc correct if you want to score 11 tricks…. :-)
May 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
fixed thanks
May 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Showing a 5-3 fit seems not too clever.

I use DBL here as T/O but I do know an expert pair who play it as exactly 2. I imagine their method has some excellent upsides at MP.
May 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Think both are rulings for me but not clear-cut.

Hand 1: This hand should have bid at multiple points in this auction. I assume they got out as they claimed 4 was “pick a major partner”. I.e they deliberately used a bid to cover partner when they actually had a more clearcut bid. It looks like fielding to me. Another question is why didn't they bid over the T/O double?

Hand 2: I think North meant his bid as a mixed raise? Muddying the waters on this hand makes no sense given the vulnerability and the weakness of your hand.
May 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the hands. Very cool.

On the second hand:

An alternative line which might be better is to draw trumps. Now when East shows up with 3 we know he has 4315 or 4306. Cash A and the whole hand is revealed. Now AKQ (throwing a diamond) and play a up. Now we can double endplay East regardless of his spade cards.
April 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We are on a guess for the double squeeze as far as I can see. If LHO has 4 we cannot make now so RHO has 42(43) or (42)(52). We essentially need to guess which minor East has length in and then lead the shorter one. If we lead the longer one then I don't think? the double squeeze operates.

I don't know what clues or inferences can be taken to figure this one out. My best guess is that if RHO was 42(52) they would have thrown from the 5 card suit first.

Thus my line is: , , .

Sidenote: I would have played it differently as West's discard on the 3rd is probably v helpful.
March 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I initially looked at this and thought that this was good logic. 2 queries have come to mind though:

1) Why can't be 6142/6043 round the table?
2) Can partner make a FJ on 5-3?
March 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great result. Well done!
March 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Zimmermann - Schwartz
Gupta - Fireman
Cayne - Verbeek
Lall - Seligman

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
.

Bottom Home Top