Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jeff Halle
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 22 23 24 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Art, I strongly agree about mini-Roman. I have never had a bad result when opps play it, often because one forgot.
However, yesterday I was reluctantly playing it at partner’s request, and we got a top. Advancer neglected to raise overcaller’s strong bid to game. I can’t say it was because of my bid, as the raise should have been automatic, but it was the first time I encountered a good result by the users of the convention.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Truscott’s Rule: Anyone can take a finesse. Making a squeeze gets your name in the paper.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another possibility is playing for a singleton or doubleton club honor. If after the strip it looks like clubs are not 3-3, you could try club A and another. This works about 60% of the time clubs are 4-2 or 5-1. Perhaps not as good as the finesse of the J, but still a possibility if table feel and card reading give you some good clues.
Jan. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard and Andy, we play constructive raises. North evaluated his hand as not quite a constructive raise. But this article is about the play of the hand. I included the bidding because if I hadn't, there would have been a bunch of “What was the bidding” comments, even though the auction is probably irrelevant.
Jan. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It did with us. As to whether it should, that's another question.
Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think there is some validity to Stu's comment. A while ago I called the TD for a hesitation. The opps were not inexperienced, but probably not used to serious tournament play. One of the opps felt I was accusing him of “sharp” play. I tried to convince him I was not, I was merely trying to avoid anyone inadvertently using UI. The director also emphasized that there was no accusation involved. (As it turned out, there was no problem, as all subsequent actions were clear, and if there were any UI it would have been irrelevant.)

As I wasn't sure he was convinced, at a break I mentioned it to the TD and asked him to sit down with the opps to explain again why I called and why it was not confrontational. I think they did understand after he chatted with them. (We've got some great TDs in the DC area who have great people skills as well as bridge knowledge.)
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was going to subscribe when I found out you had to pay to enter the contests. So I didn’t get it. I think it only lasted a year or so.
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Two pairs overbid to 3. (Nick, no to both questions.) One made it, one went down. The rest stopped at 1 or 2, making 2 or 3. (Typical club results.). We tied with the pair that went down in 3.
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This came up a couple weeks ago with a new partner. When we discussed it, he said he had done a sim which showed playing in the five card major was superior to NT around 75% of the time. Another person confirmed that with his own sim.

So playing in the major is superior? Not so fast. With this partner, and with the sim, opener will never support with three. The 1NT bid is always balanced. So the likelihood of finding opener with three is higher than if you do not have those restrictions. Furthermore, the major contract was significantly more successful if there were fitting honors, I.e. good structure in the major, and help in opener’s suit. Otherwise, NT was better. So the sim produced erroneous results unless you have those agreements.

Bottom line, unless the two suits fit well, and you have some prospect that opener has three card support, NT might be better.

The result on the hand that prompted this: 2 had no chance whatsoever, and we were the only ones in hearts, and NT was cold for 2. Some made 3, and some in 3 made 2, so we didn’t have an absolute bottom.
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, you are quite correct that dummy can call for a ZT violation, or for similar non-bridge issues. I did not include that in my comment as I was afraid it would just confuse the issue raised by the poster.
Dec. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One correction. Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity, but once it has been pointed out, anyone, including dummy, may call the director, please.
Dec. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A priori, hearts are about 52% to yield 5 tricks. However, when lefty plays small, the odds drop. If righty plays an honor, the odds are intact, but if he plays low, you are down to about 36%. Perhaps it's better to start on clubs, and decide later whether to get your 9th trick from hearts or diamonds.

Note that if hearts aren't working, you will probably lose five tricks no matter where the diamond ace is.
Dec. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's one recent world champion who is usually seen chomping on a cigar - unlit, of course.
Dec. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is not the same situation as a double over a weak 2. Here the first double is takeout, which you declined when it would have been a free bid. The second double is TAKE OUT, so you bid as if RHO had not bid 2 the first time, only a level higher by necessity. You are known to be weak, so there is little benefit to the dual range afforded by lebensohl. (BTW, the name of the convention is not capitalized.)
Dec. 10, 2018
Jeff Halle edited this comment Dec. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, 4NT was a key card ask. (I thought that was clear from the additional text.)
Dec. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While 1 is not alertable when bid, it ought to be post-alerted, though I doubt it is a requirement. (I always do, as do my F partners.)
Dec. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or BeechNut
Nov. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“A larger number at least gives you a better chance of finding some talent.”

A larger number also gives you more people that get in the way of the competent people.
Nov. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I basically did this with one person. I asked, “What is it?” and got the reply, “Cappalletti.” I then said, “Please describe,” and got the reply, “Cappalletti.” I tried again to no avail. So I gave up. As this pair was weak, and was likely to mess it up anyway, I just went about playing for the near top. I'll probably ask again at some point with the same result. It's not worth the agita of calling the director.
Nov. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was in one a few months ago. The director did it by hand for the first 2 rounds with six teams. After that he could get no pairings without dupes. We figured out we could finish with three-ways. What a mess it was until then.
Nov. 10, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 22 23 24 25
.

Bottom Home Top