Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
By the way, having opener's cheapest rebid be as specific as 5+ s doesn't seem very efficient. If it showed 4+ spades, opener would stay out of responder's way more often, and if opener rebid anything other than 1 or 1NT, you could use subsequent bids as gadgets, since you would know you hadn't an 8+ spade fit.
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4 is still needed as natural. 4NT is the only slam try available.
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, I haven't followed this entire thread, but isn't getting an adjustment for CD easy under the current laws when you are playing with screens? After all, you got mismatching explanations on opposite sides of the screen and _ipso facto_ at least one of those explanations was misinformation, and the score can now be adjusted if the mismatch was damaging. (In fact, an appeal like this decided the Reisinger in 2001.)

What am I missing?
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Relocated comment to the intended subthread.
May 11, 2016
Christopher Monsour edited this comment May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why shouldn't we expect pairs to have notes that are as extensive as their agreements? Most pairs don't have extensive agreements. If all those pairs who had extensive agreements were required to document them properly or be at a disadvantage, I'm guessing the process of documenting their system appropriately would result in far, far fewer system forgets on their part, and so many fewer mistaken bids, and this “problem” would largely go away.
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Awesome!
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1-2-3(alert).
“What kind of game try is that?”
“That's a two-suited slam try. 4 is our game try.”
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It depends on your agreements. If your agreement is that there are no ace-asking bids without an explicitly agreed suit, then it's not Kickback. (In that case, 4 is a spade cue for hearts and 4NT and 5 are natural, but the rest is as below.)

However, most pairs would make an exception for this case, when responder has almost set trumps on his own. In that case:

4 asks for keycards for hearts
4NT is a spade cue for hearts (the bid lost to Kickback)
5 shows solid clubs and invites slam, but suggests 6 may be safer than 6
5 is a cue bid for hearts
5 invites 6 opposite a diamond control. Perhaps you hold AKxx Q xx AQxxxx
5 is Josephine for hearts
5NT asks partner to pick a slam
6 also asks partner to pick a slam but tells him what the right answer is
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course, all of this ignores the pressure that a pass puts on 4th hand, as opposed to the extra bites at the apple that they get if you pass. This is especially relevant when you do find an eight-card fit. It may not be a matter of going down fewer undertricks in 2 of some suit; it may be a matter of defending their making game vs being allowed to play 1NT.

In fact I especially hate running at favorable vul opposite a 10-12 NT when I have a flat hand. (If I don't have a flat hand and can preempt, that's a different story.)
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“What's one club?”
“Strong, artificial, and forcing.”
“What's one diamond?”
“Weak, artificial, and non-forcing….but rarely passed.”
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What was a standard “old timer” opening bid with AQ AKQ 43 J86432 ?
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“We know I can play defense, so you must think you can't”. (A propos of both pulling penalty doubles and of balancing with 4-4 vs 1NT.)
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don't apologize; it makes our results matchpoint poorly.
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Never ask partner why he revoked”
May 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's surprising how often leaving the penalty card is more effective than demanding or forbidding a lead.
May 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, but it is evidence.
May 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Beginner trying to understand his teacher: “It wasn't really a tenace; I had the queen, too.”
May 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After a successful penalty double “We don't take American Express”
May 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Full disclosure regarding a third-seat three-bid: “Preemptive but not necessarily weak”
May 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A propos of short club (and short diamond) openings: “Lead partner's suit; you might give him a ruff”.
May 10, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top