Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Gábor Szőts
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for your thoughts. I am not worried about declaring Moysians more than I have been worried up to this time because the hands on which I raise are the same on which I would raise with the current practice.
Aug. 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing transfer responses you will always bid your major first if you have a weak hand.
Anyway, 1M as a final contract after 1-1-1M? Has it ever happened in your practice?
Aug. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's a disgrace that this thread has been tainted with malevolence.
Aug. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4m is a limited bid with 4-5 losers. Sometimes partner contributes a couple of losers of his own…
Even 4m might be too high. Punish partner by forcing him to 5m? Really?
Stronger 2-suiters shall start with a double. If you are strong enough for the 5 level you won't mind if the opponents compete to 4.
Aug. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Those assigning blame to South would surely take out 3NTx to 4, only to find partner with AKx, K10x, QJx, xxxx or something similar.
July 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree but the values in diamonds part. How would he bid the same hand with weak diamonds?
July 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yuan, if they compete how do you recover?
July 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South's bidding was fine. North should have bid 2 over 2. IMO, that was the only mistake they made.
I can also see an element of bad luck. S might have downgraded K but North is sure to downgrade Q if he has it…
July 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is recommendable to use opener's 3NT rebid to show both majors. In that context, all of opener's bids over 4 can show how much he likes his hand in view of his partner's bidding.
If 3 does not deny spades you are in a much worse situation. 4 and 4 must both show spades, 4NT dislikes everything, while 5/5 shows diamond support.
July 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But ‘NS hadn’t discussed the details of how to continue after this and similar transfer sequences.'
July 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South never knew North was short in diamonds.
July 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unfortunately 1NT-2-2 is different from 1NT-2-2. North does not know about the heart fit yet.
July 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was 4 last train? Then S had a clear sign-off, and I think he should already have bid 3NT instead of 4.
July 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
All they did was reasonable.
July 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing the king is not at all necessary even if East has Qxx or Jxx in hearts and finds the spade shift. Why can't he have 5 spades, when we can duck twice?
Note that West led from a 4-card heart suit and if spades are 4-4 then he might have chosen a spade lead instead of a heart away from AHxx.
Of course after 2 spades they may switch back to hearts but then you'll know to play the king because West would persist with spades not holding the A while his partner has an entry.
July 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let me put my opinion in another way: if I have support for my partner's suit I'd never bid 3 times without supporting him and offer to play his suit with my 4th (!) call (5th this time but 1 does not count). That ought to be obvious without having any agreements.
July 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, 1NT certainly did not deny spades. 2 may not have denied spades. But an undefined 3 surely did deny spades.
July 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Opener did not raise 1. Nor did he bid 2 over 2. Nor did he bid 3 over 3. And 4 is natural? Give me a break.
July 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMO the only time you ought to superaccept is when your hand improved so much that you regret not having opened 1x (planning to rebid 2NT).
Otherwise, in my and in my opponents' practice superaccepting resulted either in going down in 3 or partner having a hand with which he would have invited anyway.
Superaccepting helps only when partner has a hand with which he almost has a slam invitation. And for such hands any superaccepting method is fine, the one described in the original post having the merit of not revealing opener's hand entirely.
July 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BTW, I don't think the idea of ranked answer polls makes sense. Why are we interested in second choice? And a simple poll does the same, the most popular answer is probably first choice.

As an extremum, consider a ranking poll with these options:
A. I take the finesse (concrete situation immaterial)
B. I do not take the finesse.

These are mutually exclusive, so those selecting (A) in a normal poll would rank it as 1st in a ranked poll. Percents would be the same.
July 6, 2018
Gábor Szőts edited this comment July 6, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top