Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course, this will go up by a fraction of a percentage because the a priori odds for the various heart breaks are no longer the right percentages once you know spades are not 3-0….
Oct. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This analysis is not even close. In fact line 1 is still approximately 64% *even if you know North has (precisely) six diamonds*. It's line 2 whose percentage changes dramatically, from about 51% to 59%, but it still doesn't quite catch line 1. Note that when North has six diamonds there are a lot of vacant place in the South hand for that 10, even when North is short in hearts.
Oct. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think Robert meant 8 to 9 in his first paragraph….
Oct. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The conditional chance that the second spade is with the long hearts when the queen is not dropping is only about 43.8%, or 10.5/24. I don't know why you think it's 11/24. It's actually 8/17 for the 35.5% case where an opponent has Qxxx, 7/17 for the 21.8% case where an opponent has Qxxxx, 6/17 for the 5.8% case where an opponent has Qxxxxx (and 5/17 for the 0.5% case where an opponent has Qxxxxxx–but of course omitting this won't substantially change the answer–certainly not from 10.5/24 to 11/24).

Thus overall you have 36.3% + 63.7%*43.8 = 64.2%
Oct. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some of my partners would insist on downgrading this 4333 to a 1NT overcall.
Oct. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2NT response to a mini-notrump to show a balanced invite or a club signoff or both red suits weak or invitational. I only suggest this if the 1NT opener was dealer and his side is not vulnerable. I don't think this has a name, but “suction over own notrump” would be appropriate.

I was actually playing a slightly inferior version of this (weak both minors replaced the weak with clubs hand so that we didn't have to rearrange other bids when we were vulnerable) when it came up against Meckwell in a BaM. I don't remember for certain the result on the board (I think it was fairly normal), but I do recall that they asked for the explanation to be repeated.
Oct. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess they don't run a train to Clarksville from your town. :)
Oct. 25, 2015
Christopher Monsour edited this comment Oct. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You appear to be ignoring the chance of the queen dropping trebleton in your analysis of Line 1 and also ignoring that Qxxx with South and the trump with N is a losing case.
Oct. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
6 may also be making when 6 is down on a diamond ruff. Of course, there's no guarantee partner will leave this in diamonds.
Oct. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2X is not game, and they don't even have a club fit unless partner is precisely 3=2=5=3 (in which case he had options other than double if he wanted to keep the auction open). With 10x of clubs, I think I am already in my landing spot!
Oct. 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If double is a strong balanced hand (typical meaning if you happen to play weak notrump) you double with this hand. It's not a penalty double, so partner doesn't know your trumps are this good, of course, so a lot of the time he won't leave it in, but you are then no worse off–and when he leaves it in, you will collect an enormous number.
Oct. 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I accept that cheating occurs (maybe not quite “regularly”). I'd like to see more effort put into punishing the cheaters. I'd like to see experiments with electronic aids to the live game, but these should be aimed primarily at enhancing everyone's experience (e.g., electronic convention cards that make explanations easier), and only secondarily at making it more difficult to cheat.
Oct. 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think 2 is a good bid. Either this hand is not good enough for a fit bid (in which case 4) or it is–in which case 3 seems more appropriate with eleven cards in the majors.
Oct. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I try not to abstain simply because I don't like the indicated methods, but DONT is really putrid…
Oct. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The reason the redouble is idiotic is that partner's double of 4 makes it clear slam is not there. The 3 bid and the double of 4 were among the more reasonable calls in the auction.
Oct. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think South hoped not to miss slam opposite a hand like KQxxx x Axxx Kxx, or even Qxxxx x Axxx Kxx.
Oct. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Edited merely to replace square brackets with dashes in the above since the words between the brackets didn't show up.
Oct. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Not twice on the same matter” would be a better translation. (Latin regularly lets a fairly generic noun–like “thing” or “matter” or “person”–be omitted if an adjective is present. English does this occasionally, but in far fewer situations. Also, Latin “in” spans the meanings of English “in” and some of the meanings of English “on”.)
Oct. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Then I bid 3 (second choice is Pass). If we were playing 12-14, this would be a 2 bid.
Oct. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The most stupid *call* in the history of bridge, anyway.
Oct. 23, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top