Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eric Sieg
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
$580 Flight, $750 lodging, $300 food, $500 card fees over 10 days. So 23.4% for me. This was one of the more expensive flight/lodging NABCs (ironically) for me, so % has certainly been higher in the past.

That said, I'm not sure I mind the NABC events going up somewhat. However, not sure I understand regional events going up. Seattle is one of the higher COL locations in the US and sectionals are $10 and regionals $14. I'm not sure its a good idea to start gouging the rank and file with exorbitant regional entry fees at NABCs. They are usually a worse experience than regional events at regionals with weaker directors/inferior conditions so keeping the cost more reasonable seems appropriate.
April 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes
March 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Additional info: 3 is a club invite
March 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did north even have XX available? Without knowing that, other people redoubling in a poll seems fairly irrelevant.
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I love playing bridge, but its definitely not good for #3 and #4. The cookie counter is always there and its a sedentary activity, even sitting EW.
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bah, just noticed I marked this as a KO. It should say matchpoints.
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Which is why east should probably be the one keycarding, as in my auction. I hate keycarding as the hand with all keycards and no filler - hard to know what to do.
March 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I picked West 100% because the bids were pretty terrible. But if it were an option I'd pick system 50%, West 100%, East 33%. Jumping to 3 here is awful. Any system that suggests that is the right bid should be doubted.

A more normal sane auction might be:
1 2 2 3 4 4 4 4NT 5 5 6 7
March 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, obviously the entire hand is about the club suit. At the table I took the low road, but wasn't sure how clear it was. I was also curious if anyone would bid 6NT. If partner has 2 clubs without the K, it seemed a lot less likely that clubs would get led around into the strong hand vs through the strong hand.
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the auction had gone 3 X 3 P P then you might have had a point Chris since 3 should be (I believe?) alertable if it isn't forcing. If it is forcing, S would undoubtedly raise on their xxx of hearts and a side singleton. I have trouble imagining that many bridge players would think bidding hearts to say “I have hearts, and I want to play here and/or want a lead in this suit” would be alertable regardless of a side fit. This situation comes up pretty often. If 3 guaranteed a club fit and was known to just be lead directional, then it would be different and (obviously) require an alert.

As for the X, that seems pretty clear cut. Had N passed you would have bid 3 so its appropriate to express doubt and also that N might be psyching. I've gotten to game in suits the opponents have bid with this partner a variety of times and knowing how to do that seems like a good bridge skill.

For the actual hand, W's hand was AKQx x AKQTxxx x and they thought they were too strong for 3 and planned to bid 4 over 3 from partner or 5 over 4 from partner. At the time, E wasn't sure if it was forcing and passed with most of their values wasted in hearts (Jx QJ8xx J987 T9) but then there was discussion after about if this should be forcing - hence this post. We've since both agreed that this should be forcing and don't feel bad about the confusion since at least one world class player voted above for nonforcing.
March 8
Eric Sieg edited this comment March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, just looked and the 3 bidder had AKT9. Given partner's holding of QJ8xx of hearts and a few more scattered points, I think X is pretty reasonable :)
March 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If its unclear what 3 is, does it still need an alert? Could be natural, could be lead directing, nobody knows.

On this hand, 3 was indeed a club raise with AKTx of hearts.
March 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In similar situations, partner has intended their X here as penalty and the X of 3 is almost certainly intended to be the same here.
March 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've been playing standard from King (rusinow) leads a good chunk of the time for years and have yet to have the theoretical JTx situation come up. I have had the Qx situation come up once. I've also seen people (including me) forget to do standard or have related confusions more than once. I play it with those who care, but don't think it is worth it.
March 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems like partner's X suggests he has enough hearts that he thought if he can get me in somewhere he's taking a long run of them. Would look dumb if he's AJ AQT9xxx x xxx and I don't take K. If he does have a 3rd spade, it cost one undertrick. If he doesn't, its a giant swing. K and then J seems like cheap insurance. Declarer's duck of the spade also seems consistent (imo) with trying to avoid a heart through.
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why wouldn't I do all of the above?
Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting. I got something for Life Master (which is what I assumed the letter was for), but nothing for the ranks since.
Jan. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry just answered first question. We tend to show 3 card support before 4 spades but show spades first with 5+. Will not necessarily GF with an A and a K, responder evaluates and decides whether to GF.
Jan. 1
Eric Sieg edited this comment Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that's a style question and the partner/partnership in question tends to focus more on cues with last train a possibility in some auctions but not (imo) in this one.
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think 3M+1 as non serious is better. Only play anything else if partner is uncomfortable with that.

I like that non serious limits information when we are just going for game. I'm pretty aggressive about bidding non serious (sign offs to game are rare), so why cue when 90% of the time we are going to finish in game anyway? That's a lot of times I've helped them on the lead.

Eric's example of needing to show clubs at the 5 level if playing non serious doesn't match my experience with non serious. I usually play that after the strong bidder denies a control, the next available cue shows a control in that suit. For example, 1 2* 2 3 4, now 4 shows a control in clubs and not necessarily one in hearts.

As for 3M+1 vs 3NT, I find 3M+1 to be better because we no longer have to make frivolous spade cues if hearts is trump. When playing 3NT as non serious and the suit was heart, we usually had to cue spades regardless of strength which resulted in that extra leak of information.

The key thing though imo is to be playing one of these. Playing some sort of non serious or serious was a huge jump in my slam bidding. After that, the differences matter a lot less.
Dec. 28, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top