Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Alan Frank
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 208 209 210 211
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Regarding John D'Errico's last comment, this is true for any of the multi-pile approaches.
12 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think it's a matter of strength–you've already decided you have a minimum. To bid again in a competitive auction, you should have more shape. I don't think passing is an LA with a six-card suit or a side five-card suit. With 5-4-3-1, maybe you would have bid again, but here is where the hesitation hurts.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I went with the last choice. I think it shows good holdings in both suits and either weakness in the other two suits or enough strength to keep going after partner's signoff. I consider “slammish” a mild overbid.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was my understanding that WNESSENW… was illegal even before the most recent laws, which is why people followed Cornelia's approach.

I wonder what the mathematical effect would be of dealing into eight piles in rotation, then combine 1+6, 2+5, 3+8, and 4+7.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, I assume you are referring to a President who uses his office to direct official business to his companies.
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, that.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wasn't thinking of #7 as a matter of law; see the claim example in my earlier reply.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that East should have helped partner by playing the 10 to deny the jack, but if he held AT75 he'd still need to lead a low one so that partner can continue the suit with KJx. And with A975 he can either lead the 9 or, as Kit recommends, cash the ace first.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would bid 6 rather than 5NT because I want to be declarer.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, I was thinking of five hearts being outstanding, not four.
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Certainly the case that opener is known for light openers, not restricted to third seat.
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm leading the 5. I don't think partner is going to care too much about my exact length (though he might guess from the auction), but I'd like to mislead declarer. He won't believe the 4, but the 5 might cause some confusion.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you play maximal doubles, 3 is less of an overbid than if it is potentially a 3½ hand.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Peg, and that's what I held when I bid it on a similar auction with a different partner last week. Here, I think it's still a reasonable bid with the quick tricks and club length. If partner pushes to any of the potential games, it should be playable.
Jan. 18
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.
Wins take precedence.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's not just a question of evaluation but of consistency. If North thought the hand was a constructive raise, why the subsequent 4 bid? On the other hand, if it was a limit raise, why not show that immediately?

Suppose South downgrades a bad 18 and opens 1NT, then raises partner's slow 3NT to 4NT. You or I might agree or disagree with the initial valuation, but once you make your bed you need to sleep in it, especially in the potential presence of UI.

If North had shown this hand as either a constructive or limit raise and subsequently accepted partner's captaincy, I don't think the OP would have any trouble with the bidding.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On the other hand, if your partner hadn't been such an idiot,* you would have happily taken +100 and not agonized over potential UI.

(*Yes, Eugene, this is a situation where the word can be used without repercussions.)

Score edited to correct for vulnerability.
Jan. 18
Alan Frank edited this comment Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Frances, in my experience the term “mixed raise” is used with reasonably frequency in the U.S., with the sense you provide.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 208 209 210 211
.

Bottom Home Top