Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In this sort of system, it would only take changing the 7 to the J for me to bid 2. But with this hand I double.
Sept. 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If not playing equal level conversion, at least relax the Michaels requirements to allow a four-card spade suit. For exactly this reason.
Sept. 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course eventually people will realize that if you open light enough in 1st & 2nd, you don't need to open 1 on balanced hands in 3rd/4th, so there's no reason for third seat 1 not to be natural–and that means that you can psych it legally and also has other advantages related to partner making better leads and raising more often.
Sept. 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If there is a pattern of responder bidding like this, then they need to change their CC, but one hand proves very little. Also, note that there is a legitimate rationale for passing 3: If you weren't going to pass 3, you should have just bid 4 over the double, presumably planning to double the opponents if they bid over that.
Sept. 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm sure you'll lend Andy a rubber so that he can correct his comment. ;)
Sept. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True, just having fun with Ray's implication that “it's use” is always an inept writing of “its use”.
Sept. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If partner has game-in-hand in spades, that +200 might feel silly. There could also be game in s, of course. And even if you give partner an ordinary takeout double, your three tricks plus his three tricks add up to 140. I admit, 110 or 140 is my expectation when I bid 1, but for my side, not theirs.
Sept. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I considered 2, but I think 2 is a better bid at matchpoints than at IMPs. Partner's lead matters more often at matchpoints, and showing spades when they have a heart fit is relatively more important at IMPs. While I might randomize to 2 sometimes with this hand at IMPs, I would probably bid 2 more often than 2 at matchpoints.
Sept. 17, 2016
Christopher Monsour edited this comment Sept. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am bidding 2NT Lebensohl intending to pass 3.
Sept. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The direct 3NT might indeed talk LHO out of a spade lead, but I have to maintain my credibility so that it talks him out of a spade lead when I have xx and a running minor.
Sept. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, if you have a couple of glasses of wine with dinner, it's use. If you drink a bottle of wine at midnight, it's abuse. Which is better advised? :)
Sept. 17, 2016
Christopher Monsour edited this comment Sept. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice article, as always.

On page 12, where you say “if declarer has 108xx”, did you mean “1087x”?
Sept. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ron, in English an unmodified judgmental statement is understood to be the opinion of the writer. Now, if the writer means the opinion to be attributed to someone else THEN he needs to say so explicitly.
Sept. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Al, the regulations merely specify you say “transfer” instead of “alert” in certain situation. They most emphatically do NOT suggest that you repeat the word “transfer” if asked to explain the bid; indeed that would most most useless.
Sept. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, that's certainly true when someone writes down a *valid* proof of a theorem, but even then there is the question of the language in which the proof is valid. For example, do statements in the proof quantify only over individuals and not over relations? Unless the proof is written by a logician, there may well be quantification over relations (which makes the proof invalid in first-order logic)–which might or might not be able to be reduced to quantification over individuals, but the author and the readers may not much care.

For example, starting with the field axioms, the statement “F is a field of characteristic zero” can't be expressed in first-order logic, but is quite clear in the language of everyday mathematics, and is used in the statement (and the proof) of many theorems. Sure, you could restate much of the content of such theorems into first-order logic by axiomatizing fields of characteristic zero separately but (a) that requires an infinite number of axioms, and (b) most mathematicians wouldn't do so in practice.
Sept. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I have a complicated auction and end up declaring, my partner and I leave our bidding cards on the table until the opening lead is faced, and no opponents ever complain about it. ;)

They also tend not to mind if they have a complicated auction and we ask “leave them out”.
Sept. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In any event, as a practical matter, if the RA is going to tell them they have agreements they don't actually have, it at least needs to tell them when they no longer have the agreements they don't actually have, so they know when it's safe to remove them from their card.
Sept. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But they never changed their methods, which never involved having an agreement to open light in 3rd seat. As a result of a couple of psychs, they were forced to add something to their card that was not part of their agreed methods. If the regulator authorities force them to do that, why shouldn't they use it to their best advantage?
Sept. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The regulating authorities would also need to worry about the opposite problem: Suppose a partnership opens light a couple of times in 3rd seat, so then they add it to their card because they are told they “have to”, but they never do it again. And now opponents may be playing suboptimal methods against their (completely normal) third seat openers.
Sept. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, so you mean out-of-turn light third-seat openers?

(Sorry, it's been a while since I played in a club game, so I guess I should ask if that's still what they're like.)
Sept. 13, 2016
Christopher Monsour edited this comment Sept. 13, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top