Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The difference, Steven, is that you can be reasonably certain that partner has exactly five spades. On the other hand, the number of clubs in his hand is highly uncertain…it could be three, four, or five. Club shortness in RHO's hand makes more clubs with partner more likely.

Also, the situation you describe is inherently unlikely. Three is the worst number of spades for RHO to hold when there is no spade fit for us (from his perspective…it could be three fast losers), and if he held 3=5=4=1 doubling 2 for takeout would be far safer than a 2 overcall.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Doesn't the delayed overcall suggest that overcaller decided we probably had a fit when partner bid clubs, but wasn't worried about it when partner bid spades? I suspect it's much more likely than usual that partner has real clubs and much more likely than usual that spades are breaking 5-1.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This just in…the five-letter versions of dogs and cats also beg your indulgence for more inclusiveness….
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The three-letter relative of the horse is feeling neglected. Next time remember him in your metaphors…
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think we disagree on the meanings of the bids, then, but on an evaluation of the problem hand. I think the problem hand is worth a 6 call opposite an offensively oriented hand that thinks it lacks slam interest.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's also the interesting question of whether you thought you had discussed it (your way) and only partner's explanation reminded you that you hadn't. Are your obligations then any different than they would have been if you had bid 1NT knowing it was undiscussed (and thus simply assuming it would be taken as natural)?
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First of all, a big “thank you” to Mariusz for posting additional evidence. It can't have been easy to put all this together, either emotionally or in terms of time.

Many posters here advocated a few weeks ago that teammates of cheaters should be suspended. I look forward to all of you admitting that you were wrong.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would pass if vulnerable, at any form of scoring, but not vulnerable it seems OK to venture 2 when they might not have a higher fit. Switch the minors and I am not so sure I would be willing to bid 2.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's a damn good thing he bid 4 since, if he had passed, I would have been playing in a cuebid.

Most players would not play 5 as a slowdown call…It's not particularly forward-going, but it does suggest better offense than already promised, as otherwise partner should pass 5 to give me chance to double and defend.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
By the way, I agree with having a cheap bid to show both majors, but two of them? Don't you want a natural 4 bid? (4 can be both majors…just pass with a natural 4 bid and bid next round. If responder passes 3NT you will probably be glad you passed. If responder bids 4 p/c and opener bids 5, hitting it after an initial pass should show diamonds.)
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is that thrumping sound I hear Marty Bergen rightly gloating about the big vote for 3NT? :)
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do the credits in the Max Hardy book cancel out the credits in the Marshall Miles book?
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That said, it would be nice to have a more complete description of 4. It has to be more specific than just any club raise with heart shortness. Some of those had better go through 3 on a useful-space-principle basis.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some people use 3 to show a concentrated 5-5.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am OK with not opening my longest suit when the diamonds are so weak they only count as a 5-bagger. I feel no need to have partner value diamond honors highly, and I presume I can suggest mild extras by passing the X of 2 instead of bidding 2, so I think I should pass there (second choice, bid 3 preemptively). If I had not bid 3, the final pass would be fine, but since I have overstated my offensive values and created a forcing pass, and since my defense is reasonably robust, I think I had better double.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That last sentence needs punctuation. Did you mean “We're through the looking glass, people” or “We're through-the-looking-glass people”?
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On an ace-empty five-bagger, with fitting cards in diamonds almost as valuable? No thank you.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, technically, if this was prior to 1967, the “of America” in “United States of America” would have been necessary to distinguish from the United States of Brazil.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, but I'm not talking about pass-and-pull, just pass-and-sit.
Nov. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, it's not loathsome for the reasons mentioned here. It would be loathsome if you were trying to get your opponents or the pair following you into time trouble.
Nov. 7, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top