Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Bob Heitzman
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The auction look ludicrous but the only action that I thought was clearly terrible was East's initial advance. To me 1n is clear; I really prefer to have a fifth or at least some shape to jump to 2. Yet 1 is inadequate. 1n is a perfect solution, and on this deal should put a quick end to the nonsense. It seems like a small slip, but it created an avalanche of bad calls.

I don't play West's raise to 2 as showing extras, so ! don't violently object. I don't play that it's mandatory to raise to 2 with four either, and this hand looks like a good one to go low on. The QJ of seem like warning signs. But 2 wasn't clearly wrong.

As for East's 3, he kind of boxed himself in with his poor initial choice. I prefer 2n to 3 and in fact 3n by East is a better contract than 4, but neither is great. And 4 of course is an unsound choice but if this was imps I'd forgive him for kicking it in.

The main problem was the 1 advance. After that things spun out of control.
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Being able to access deal histories is a basic feature of online bridge, and perhaps the most important reason it is better than F2F. A player can see how others handled his cards, etc. It's the way to improve.

BBO is struggling. We don't really know who is in charge. Is it Uday? Maybe, but I have a feeling he is just an advisor receiving a monthly honorarium at this point.

It's a shame. This is a window of opportunity for them to cement the transition from F2F to online. Instead they are just perpetuating the ACBL paradigm of the pro-client culture and exploiting the situation financially by maxing out on daylongs and conspiring with the ACBL to rip people off.
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very unlikely we have a game opposite a ph without having to guess a Q or two so imo pretty obvious to pass. Nice to know it goes down 2. Why give us this clue? I guess it was right to bid.

I have seen them in a 52 fit on this auction.
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rebid 2. But with something like 2533 and a weak heart suit, I might wing it with 2 also. With 3532, I might choose among 2, 2, and 2, depending on suit quality. I guess my point is that if the negative double gives you three places to bail out below 2n then it can be weaker than when there are only two, and that arguably the meaning of the 2n rebid changes.

This is a theoretical point only. I doubt if it is something that I could rely on at the table because I don't have that depth of agreement with most or even any partners. In practice, After 1-(2)-x, with 18-19 I'd rebid 3n or cue-bid and reserve 2n for a solid 13-14.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's a takeout double but the reason you didn't make it the first round might not be that you are too weak. It might be that you are off shape or had some other reason not to double the first time. Especially if you don't play ELC after the initial double.
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let's say it goes 1m-(1)-3, weak jump shift. At some point in the play, opener has to decide whether to play responder for shortness or a doubleton in his minor. He should play him for the doubleton; with shortness he would tend to pass rather than “post-empt” with 3.
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4>4n>4
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That depends on your requirements for a negative double. E.g., a negative double of 1M (2) x requires a better hand than 1M (2) x, which in turn requires a better hand than 1m (1M) x.
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This one is minimum range but if the overcall had been 2, then I think 2n would imply 18 to 19 because 2 is available with the minimum range hand.
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lol. The unusual 2n takes a lot of abuse. Not sure what the objection to this one is. For once, no one is claiming it will give them a road map in the play. The odds are pretty good we can compete effectively in a minor at the 3 level. Make them guess. Yes, it's possible they might guess right when given a free run they would have guessed wrong, but the odds are the other way around. If they guess to defend 3m doubled and are right, I'll be surprised. Especially at mps, where we are concerned with frequency rather than magnitude. Maybe pass is right, but the lopsided vote is unwarranted, imo.
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Forcing (my pref) or not, I suspect partner has a raptor hand-type and is itching to rebid 2. I can now rebid 2n, and we should get to the best contract. If he passes, which imo he should not do with shortness, 2 should be playable.
May 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Redouble might show the A or K, but it would be an illegal call. Double just says “that's what I was going to bid”. Way to important not to let them deprive you of one of the most important tools in bidding, the simple raise. If you were going to make a simple raise, you still can. If you weren't, that's a different problem.

An analogous sequence: 1 (1) 2 (x).

You never know what kind of freak partner might have. Let him know that the deal is not a misfit.
May 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a way to distinguish a distributional raise to 3, like this one, from a hcp based raise.
May 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course there is such a thing as no agreement. Have you discussed every situation with every partner you ever played with?I doubt it.
May 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, giving up the chance to ever defend 2M-doubled would probably be a good thing, given the risk-reward aspects of that contract. There are many more deals where they made it in my memory banks than deals where the defense collected a number. If we had an agreement here that partner could never ever pass the double, then I would gladly double. (I did have such an agreement with one partner but it is not the kind of constraint that modern players would accept.)
May 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Excuse me, the sequence was not 1-1n, which btw doesn't promise 4+ clubs either. It was 1-(x)-1n!
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe it is way too rigid to require 4+ clubs for this 1n call. Aside from the occasional hand where partner will choose not to mention a weak 4-card major, especially with (43)(33), there are many hands with longer diamonds than clubs that would do so (e.g., 3352). 1n is a rather descriptive call–8-10 hcp, stopper(s), etc.–so when you have an appropriate hand, you often choose it even when there is another possible call.

The issue here is whether we should compete in clubs or diamonds, or possibly not at all (-200 may be lurking at the 3-level). As for 2n never being to play in competitive auctions, that also is way too rigid, especially when one partner has already bid 1n.

It is one thing to play strict walsh-style in constructive auctions–I don't. In competitive auctions, you don't have that luxury; you often have to prioritize and guess which feature of your hand to show when the opportunity arises.

Pass here just says “nothing to say”. It implies a relatively balanced hand. If partner is 3352, he may figure out that balancing in 3 is best; if I bid 3 in front of him, we'll play in our 52 instead of our 54. If I double for takeout, he might pass. That might be ok too but I try to avoid defending 2 doubled when it is a 8-card fit.
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1n rebid over 1 is fine..would never open 1..am not sophisticated enuf to open 1n..i have many partners who would bid 1n with 5+ diamonds
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would say negative rather than takeout, and I'd be reluctant to do it with a stiff spade, even the Q. I don't want to commit to a suit at the 3-level either. I'd love to bid 3 but partner may be about to balance 3. So I guess I have to pass.
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Btw, did I ever tell you one of my 20 stories of the times they made lightner doubles against me that allowed the opponents to escape to the right contract? I actually wrote an article about it in the Daily Bulletin at one of the nationals. (A few of those times “they” was my partner.)
May 5
.

Bottom Home Top