Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Alan Frank
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 245 246 247 248
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On page 7, declarer leads to the K, which had been played earlier. Should be the Q.
12 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Single-dummy, I think you do best to win the opening lead in dummy, eliminate the minors, and lead a heart towards your ace. If West is 2=1=5=5, he can either ruff air and give up his side's trump trick or let you win your ace and then endplay him.
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit's last article (http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/a-little-help) involves making a slam on misdefense, rather than playing for a nearly identical layout as in this hand. I would not assume that East, regardless of credentials, would have found the play to break up the squeeze after West's J.
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rosenkranz and Guildenstern are dead, IMHO. I prefer Munson, where (1x) 1y (X) XX shows Kx or Ax of partner's suit. With three, raise. (Says nothing about having stoppards in opponents' suit(s).)
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am fine with 1-6, but would discourage people from writing #7 unless you know that the player would be okay with it.
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like the ATB threads (and even more, the World Championship books) as a reminder that I don't have a monopoly on taking suboptimal actions.
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of the posts above had just enough of a hint to allow me to find the solution, though on further analysis I'm not sure I agree with what was said. More once the sequestration ends.
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can clarify the difference with “I can't come up with a North hand where 3 would be an effective call” versus “3 is conservative but not unreasonable.”
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An equivalent term, which I mostly hear from Britons, is “a quarter of a top.”
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As one who recently posted an ATB where there is a consensus that I underbid, I'd like to make a finer gradation than Peg did.
a) “3 is an underbid.” Fine.
b) “3 is the worst call in the history of bridge.” Not helpful, but at least you're talking about the call and not insulting the player.
c) “South accidentally took his sleeping pills before the session.” Don't quit your day job.
d) “South is an idiot.” Should get flagged (and indeed, BW even warns you).
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Mike: One of my CC's has this explanation noted for doubles of weak NTs: “+800.”
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was not expecting to be able to defend 3, but felt that with only three little trumps, LHO overruffing hearts, and suits likely to break badly that I didn't have enough for 3.
However, after partner's double I agree that I should have done more, probably 3. She could have had KQJ63 Axxx AK xx for the double, where game is hopeless, so I don't think I should bid it directly.
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the goal is for everyone to get to play bridge, that is not going to help.
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not discussed as to whether the delayed 3 would be a grope for 3NT or an intermediate raise (i.e., this hand).
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North did not demand that South bid at the three level.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South was spared the necessity of bidding with Rich's Yarborough by East's 3 call, so 3 must show _some_ values, though we can debate whether this much.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The J is an important card and in my opinion a good reason to bid 1NT. Other actions could lead to partner declaring a NT contract with Ax(x), neutralizing your potential second stopper.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps the OP was influenced by the directors making, in effect, the same mistake. And they should know better.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Slightly off-topic, but what do people think of the agreement that 4 shows a strong hand with + and double shows a strong hand with +? The disadvantages are obvious; the question is whether clarity of the second suit is worth it.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play fit-jumps as NF by a passed hand. My understanding is that was the original plan. P (P) 1 (P) 3 and opener will pass with Axx AQ42 xx xxxx.
Dec. 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 245 246 247 248
.

Bottom Home Top