Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eric Sieg
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have thought B was CoG since we've both bid a suit and still trying to find the right strain. The others seem like slam tries.
Dec. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems like West's level of experience is important in the poll. If playing with someone with 800 MPs and simple agreements/card, I would feel very different about pass vs 2 vs someone who has more experience.
Dec. 20, 2018
Eric Sieg edited this comment Dec. 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems like the experience level of West is pretty relevant on this hand.
Dec. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Have seen the following couple fallacies against WC players:

1) They are good enough to have underled an A/some other very unlikely thing. Declarer goes down when just assuming everyone is making the obvious/normal play would have worked.

2) X is too good to have made a mistake, therefore Y can't be the position. Everyone is human. Sometimes they just had a mental lapse and Y really was the position and now they aren't punished for their error.

Should breaking up diamond squeeze be obvious? Ya. But W might have the K of spades and 9xxx of diamonds and they just misdefended.
Dec. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Peg: Nope. Then I'm looking at a tablet, not looking at people. We make fun of people who go to dinner/spend time with friends and then everyone spends time looking at their phone instead of interacting. This seems similar but its with their tablet instead.

I would stop going to any club that tried to switch to tablets and I've heard that same sentiment expressed by many people both young and old as well.
Dec. 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I love how people say “older people” when talking about a switch to electronic as if it wouldn't drive away younger people too. The social/in person/physical aspect of bridge is a huge thing going for it. Young people are flocking to game stores in droves to play physical/tactile games with other young people. These games are also available electronically where it is more convenient, but the electronic versions see a tiny fraction of the play that physical in person games see.

I want to play a game with people. If I wanted to play a video game, I have plenty more options with much better graphics and a lot more variety.

Young people like social interaction/physical elements too. Just because we are comfortable with technology doesn't mean we think it is inherently better to use a computer solution. I work with computers all day, spending my leisure time on a computer sounds less than appealing and is a big part of why I've drifted away from video games.
Dec. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I started counting when I was far enough in an event I didn't want a penalty. Have continued the habit, even though I haven't actually found an incorrect number in the past 16 months since I started.
Dec. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rather than delving into specifics: I just wish the BOD would put together a committee or something and take a serious look at nationals schedules. Specifically, it would be great to see them rework the schedules with an eye to making it so people have something to play as often as possible.

The goal (in my mind) should be no longer than 1 day wait for an unrestricted (by age/gender) NABC+ event.

It seems far worse to discourage people from attending nationals at all due to schedule holes than to have an extra couple GLM eligible events every year.
Dec. 7, 2018
Eric Sieg edited this comment Dec. 7, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top