Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
1 2 3 4 ... 109 110 111 112
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Come on. The only analysis that makes any sense is to compare opening 3 to other actions taken WITH THE SAME HANDS because *that's how you score points in duplicate*. 3 is neither a good bid nor a bad bid, just an underutilized bid. Once the field fixes its blind spot and starts opening 3 more often (or, alternatively, implements another useful way to preempt with a six-card club suit), 3 will no longer score so well. But it will be no more or less “deadly” than it is today–just better appreciated.
an hour ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(3) is substantially different from (1) and (2) in that the opponents have shown substantially more values in (3), and partner has promised substantially fewer values.
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another advantage of 1NT is getting to a superior heart fit when available.
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I should also note that if I'm playing a system where openings are even lighter than modern standard (e.g., playing Precision) I would settle for 2.
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'll show this as a three-trump limit raise. After all, if I change a Q to an A, I'd force game. It's close though, and I wouldn't be annoyed if partner bid 2 and put down this dummy.
16 hours ago
Christopher Monsour edited this comment 16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My generic agreement after negative doubles is that opener's jumps are non-forcing with extras. Looking at these sequences, I'm glad to have that agreement on sequence 1 (where I don't need much to jump as partner has promised clubs and 3 from me won't really promise support) and on sequence 3 (where partner could really be quite weak and we may need to stop in 4 even if my hand is a quite good 5-5). Sequence 2 is less clear: Partner promised considerable values to double a preempt but he didn't promise clubs, and if my hand misfits his spades and I am too good for 3 but not good enough to GF perhaps it's better if I just bid 3 regardless. Perhaps jumps to 4-minor after partner's double of a preempt that didn't promise that minor should be forcing. It would also be reasonable to agree that new suit jumps after a double of a preempt are forcing if below game. The only thing that seems to be completely unreasonable is to play this as forcing on sequence 3, where responder could be quite weak.
16 hours ago
Christopher Monsour edited this comment 15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5 may cause us to miss some slams when we are off the A. But many of those will be bad slams (off A and a ruff or AQ offside). 5 is misleading given the agreements as described; it won't often matter, but if partner has a rock-crusher and bids 5NT to ask for trump honors, we'll be sorry he thinks we have A.

5 is clearly a general slam try (since we know diamonds are under control), but I'd rather have both minor-suit aces (or neither) since partner (especially with this style of cue-bidding) will assume I would have cue-bid my ace if I had precisely one of them.
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I take this sort of splinter to show at least some extras. 11-19 HCP is an intolerably wide-range for a jump to 4, and 2 wasn't even forcing to game. You might want to clarify, since as you see different readers will make different assumptions.
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm fairly certain that's not the reason since that's even more true of 2, which didn't score as well as 3.
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4 can be a slam try in spades, so here you can use 4 as natural.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was amused by your description of the opponents' level as “B/low A”. Next time you might want to end that description with a noun or a pronoun rather than an article, to let more people in on the joke. ;)
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 seems very dangerous. Many people play it as submin with 4=4 or 5=4 in the majors. Making the same bid with a 6=4 with game interest does not seem like a good idea. You might not want to be in 4 opposite Mr. Fleet's example hand, but you surely don't want to play 2 opposite that dummy.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would also have opened this hand 3, and my second choice would have been pass.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It would be nice if the bidding poll let the passers choose between pass-and-sit and pass-and-pull.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It doesn't exactly speak for itself, but it's no mystery, either. A bid is only going to gain against *different* calls made with the same hand. With other three-level preempts, that *other* call may well be a weak two, which will also tend to preempt the opponents, but with clubs, that *other* call will most often be Pass.

This does suggest that one should often open 3 with a six-card suit, but it would have been nice if one knew the MP and IMP margins for actions in various seats, at various vulnerabilities, with various length suits.

Another way in which the study does not speak for itself is that we don't know the sampling methodology. Imagine if it turned out that all the deals included had plurality final contracts that were double-dummy makeable, for example.
Aug. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can you clarify the “before such things were forbidden” remark? There seem to be NPCs in this year's Bermuda Bowl, for example.
Aug. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You seem to be confusing “majority” with “plurality”.
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You mean more *often* than you do. I'm sure your opponents would love it if you started preempting *more* than you do, like opening 5 when everyone else is opening 4. :)
Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also, now that I have voted, it's no longer a majority choice. ;) (It's down to 50%.)
Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed, with this example hand, I would rather bid 2 than double or pass, since I will not be happy with either double or pass if LHO raises. While partner might overcompete after 2, at least he knows I have values, and he should understand that in competition this might be on honor-x (or what's the point of playing five-card majors?).
Aug. 20
1 2 3 4 ... 109 110 111 112
.

Bottom Home Top