Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Libchaber
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 16 17 18 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard,

Would you agree that after the 3 bid, it is more likely that the NT opener has few points in that suit and therefore they are bidding on a 30 point deck. Knowing that E/W have values on both sides has to be a positive development from North's point of view.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If partner had support, wouldn't their first bid be 3 rather then 3? One can see this auction go 1 2 3 4, therefore 3 must tend to deny support and therefore 4 must be the second suit.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because Dummy will be more agressive knowing that there is a fit.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pushing to 3 did indeed get the opponents to declare and make 4. Dummy's hand was:

QJ765
-
QJ65
JT86

Over my 3, she just bid 4 that couldn't be touched. She then said to me, “good thing you bid, else I would have passed 2”.

Don't know what to think but I do like Phillip's way of thinking on this, especially when partner is a passed hand.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The reason why I didn't post it as a bidding problem is because I wanted to know how conceivable it is to pass in general.

From the number of abstentions, I should have posted it as a bidding problem.

Your lefty has

Kxx
AT872
7
xxxx
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry anant,

I actually search for 1M - 1NT - 3NT and no thread showed.
Oct. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You have less then invitational values…If that doesn't clarify the type of hand you have, I don't know what will.
Sept. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is similar to an earlier post about active ethics. Michael Rosenberg argued strongly that the onus is on the pair who forgets their agreement, and that if one forgets, one should pay some price for it.

The situation here may be different, but the logical reasoning seems to me the same: the pair who erred IS the pair who should be penalized for forgetting their agreement.

Irrelevant of E/W asking, there has to be a penalty for pairs forgetting what they play.
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chris,

The slam try in the minor playing Wolff is via the impossible bid. Over 2NT, you bid 3C, the beginning of a poor hand and forcing the 3D rebid by opener. Over 3D, you bid 3NT. That's the slam try, since with a poor hand, you would now either pass 3D or rebid your major.
Sept. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
'Christ on a cracker'…never ever heard that expression before. Nice alliteration; its meaning please?
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I couldn't find the thread when I searched for 1m - 1NT. please let me know the name of the OP or th title.

Thank you very much.
Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apologies Richard, I just clarified the bids.
Aug. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You better agree as to what you play, that's the moral of the story here Ellis :)

If you just sat down with a pickup, I would assume a void because most people don't know exclusion.
Aug. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The issue is not the game issue, but rather the strain and the potential slam…You will play in a game, but which one? And if you think there is slam potential…
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kieran, is this treatment standard in the UK? Here, Double shows 4 cards and a direct bid shows 5…
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And if you don't have that treatment available to you?
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think overtaking with the Ace makes sense to let partner know that he has a entry. It is unlikely that he has Ace empty sixth in . The overtake should be a suit preference as well.
Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Absolutely 1. Over 1 - 1 - 1 - 3 - P - P - X partner is better placed to decide where you should be.
July 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Get rid of 26 districts and ban professional players from being directors. Until conflict of interests are removed at the highest level (the board), nothing will change.
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve,

Is this a backward way of telling us how great you are :))

You seriously can't imagine ANYONE banging down the A at trick 2?
June 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 16 17 18 19
.

Bottom Home Top