Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Donald Lurie
1 2 3 4 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 26 27 28 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Phil.
If you are still using the Old (flash) Version, I think I can get you there:
From main screen, click on Practice, on the next screen click on Bridge Movies, the on “Enter BBO Store to access educational bridge content”. That will bring you to a screen with a large scroll-down menu on the left hand with categories such as Bidding, Play, General, and on the right you will seen an article, probably one by Ben Dickens/ Inquiry.
On the left menu, scroll down past Featured Authors until you reach Fred Gitelman's name with the number 21 next to it (i guess 21 articles. I believe there a number of DOTW articles there, i counted 17. Good luck, let me know if it works.
I have no idea where they are on the new program.
DHL
I will double check

Yes, just double checked, got to them very quickly. JUst have to find the article you want and at bottom of the square you clikc on “Open Movie”. It just worked for me: i tried a few of them.
Hope this works for you
July 15, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment July 15, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is deja vu all over again.
I prefer Steve's method.
July 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Deosil go by the waxing moon, chanting out the joyful tune.
Widdershins go when the moon doth wane, and the werewolf howls by the dread wolfsbane.
July 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assume not playing good-bad 2N: what would 2NT in this position show/ ask/ tell?
June 28, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
inconceivable!
June 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South's hand was 6, A64, KQT8762 Q5
If you bid 4 with the OP hand, you likely play it there for a reasonably good result. We reached what seemed to be a good 6 contract, only to be scuttled by a 5-0 trump break (east had A9543). Not sure there were sufficient entries for a trump coup. Not sure what the best line for 6 would be: you likely get a lead through the Queen. (I'm sure many will have good ideas for how to make either/ both contracts)
East hand: T43, J93, A9543 82
West hand: J752, 52, void, KJT9764
June 21, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment June 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can't say for sure, but to those who selected 4 as their' bids, I suspect that might elicit a 4 response from opener. Maybe not. (Maybe 5) 5 Excl. gets you 5N (1) What next by the hand? 6?

This is the companion hand: 3, KJ92, K63, KQT86. Grand in either minor. How should the bidding continue after the 4 cue?
Thx
June 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If partner does not have any or shortness in hearts, then he/she has a good enough hand that is prepared to deal with such a jump-response such as 3H here. (At least, that is what I was taught.) The question of whether partner's bid of a new suit after your 3H bid is forcing or not might make for another interesting discussion.
June 7, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment June 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thx RF
although you disagreed with East's initial action with the companion hand in a separate poll, how do you play East's double in the given auction?
June 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom - amigo!
I'm not quite sure what you mean by playing “this double as cards bordering on T/O so it is unlikely pard will pass.”

But I will let the proverbial cat out of the bag and say that this hand was the companion hand for AQJ32, 62, KQ98, Q9.
(I held this S-D hand while my partner held the OP hand and chose to double 2. He was disappointed when I interpreted his double as T/O, couldn't convert, and bid 3. Partner at that point bid 5s, doubled by south, and with the finesse working I somehow managed to take 11 tricks (taking the precaution against the bad break.)
Yes, 2X would have been down a bit, maybe 11 or 1400, but the hand was unlikely to play there as north had 8 s to the KJ that hand't yet been mentioned.

But the whole point of posting this hand and its companion is to try to see how many people are using the same meta-rules regarding when doubles are T/O vs Pen after 1M - p - 1NT - 2Y -? as well as in the auction in this OP. It appears that not everyone agrees on the meanings of these doubles without prior discussion. But sometimes you don't have time for prior discussion and an “oops” occurs.

Fwiw: as of this writing, it appears from the other poll that 3/4 of those responding play 1M-p-1NT (f1) - 2Y - Dbl as takeout, not penalty.
June 5, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment June 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
no entrapment or bias intended. I don't do such things. It's just that this hand came up after 3 straight hands of some less-than-orthodox bidding by the south player. Now I wish i hadn't mentioned that fact especially as I don't think it had any bearing on west's bidding - for that I apologize. more later when the companion hand is shared. This is more about partnership agreements.
June 4, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment June 4, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
:) suspected at least some would be playing fit bids
thx R
May 27, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment May 27, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
thx steve: p doesn't play snapdragon, don't ask me why not? I'm curious to find out how many play 3 as fit jump vs natural preempt vs natural/invitational, and if any play 4D as fit raise vs splinter.
DHL
May 26, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment May 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thx: I guess i pretty much knew wolff after all, just needed some reminders. I found some stuff on transfers but am still need to absorb it. Thx for comeback
May 22, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment May 22, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Craig:
Thank you for your contribution.
As the OPer (I like that name), I will gladly answer your question about why we do not play one of the alternatives you mention. I preface this by saying that I am not afraid to publicly state when I am wrong or when I do not know something. My foolish pride went out years ago.
1) Although I know that 3 relays to 3 to sign off in 3M in basic Wolff, I do not know all the other rebids, inferences, and follow-up sequences. Feel free to provide them.
2) I know transfer rebids after 1M-1N-2N but am not familiar with transfers after 1X-1M-2NT. Nor have I ever seen them used. Granted, I have been out of the acbl club and tourney scene for almost a decade except for an occasional foray. I tried to google same but have been unsuccessful. Again, if you have something to offer us here, please feel free to do so. It would be very much appreciated.
3) In my experiences, signing off in 3M over 2N, especially when opener could be xx in the M, has more often than not led to a less optimal contract than just passing/ playing 2NT. Yes, it could be nicer if opener has 3-card support, bit it's also a level higher.
4) Brain drain factors are relevant. One also needs a willing partner.
May 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
pp227 - already located it. Thx :)
May 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David: I agree with you about 6 being virtually cold on lead, and I did make the loser on loser play on the lead. Unfortunately, I was only in 5.
Re the Rubens book: I have it but personally find it to be the a bit difficult to read (I have a reading disability). I will check out your chapter reference. Thanks
May 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
exactly
how to get there is the interesting part
May 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To those who elected to now bid 4: please explain that decision as opposed to 4 (which I would have interpreted as setting the suit and looking for Q or some additional feature not yet shown. At this point in the bidding, responder's hand is still mostly unknown other than likely rather weak (at least in terms of high cards) Either bid (4 or 4 - I would be more likely to understand 4), though, might have brought a pleasant.
Might not some think that 4 is setting s as trump? If not, why not? Does X followed by 3 promise the above hand or could it be the same hand but with the minor suits reversed? (Perhaps, in that latter case, one might rebid 2, not 3) I guess I am asking if the 3 rebid absolutely establishes support?)
To those who elected to bid 5: that might have made life difficult for partner.
To the majority who elected to pass 3NT: making 3 or 4, depending on whether or not you get the expected lead.

Here is the companion hand, the hand that I held. I was going to post it as another poll of what to bid after the strong hand next bids 4 over 3NT, but none of you selected that bid. But someone else did.
: K7543, 8, 10974, 985
Not exactly the type of hand or suit to convert a balancing 1st round double to penalties, and not some 5332 or 4333.
Over 4 or 4, this hand just might muster up a 4 bid.
How good is a 6 contract, especially on a lead? Looks good to me. How to get there?
Awaiting feedback, thanx.
May 21, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment May 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To all of you who responded to this poll: thank you.
Simply said, the person who held this hand had/ has a very different perspective of whether or not balancing back in, in this case with 1NT, necessarily shows the traditional extra values (approx. 17-19 give or take). Rather, the argument presented was essentially that there are various hand where partner can have values but no reasonable bid, and that selling out to 1 is a losing option, and that we may still have the values for making our own contract. Is this mainstream or even somewhat common position? I doubt it. (I played him for a strong, balanced hand) Would sims help with determining whether this person's argument there are a number of hand where responder might have no bid over 1 yet it is still our hand? I don't know how to do them.
May 20, 2019
1 2 3 4 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 26 27 28 29
.

Bottom Home Top