Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jim Perkins
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You need actually 5 tricks, but cannot afford to give up the lead to get them. So I just assumed that is the same as needing all 6, but perhaps not.

When I wrote the post (and played the hand) I so discounted the highly improbably singleton K that I ignored that possibility. As it turns out the K is single and so you do indeed need only 5 tricks and have the Q entry to get there.
April 22, 2016
Jim Perkins edited this comment April 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ David Burn: I had thought about it on my own and I could not come up with the answer . . . I still cannot seem to satisfy my own curiosity as to how the probabilities play out in this case. It seems to me that there are in fact two unknown cards in all the critical cases, one a Q and one small. It seems that they should be, based on all information received to this point, equally like to be Q with LHO or Q with RHO. But I know that the textbook line is to take the first round finesse and I believe that textbook continues, if you err on the first round and cash a top honor then take the second round finesse.

Thus, I asked.

I did do a poor job of asking my question with clarity. I must assume 6 tricks or I have no chance at all. I hold the A making 7. So I need to bring in 5 tricks in s but I cannot afford to lose the lead while doing it, since once I lose the lead, they will cash their A (if they haven't taken it at trick 1).
April 22, 2016
Jim Perkins edited this comment April 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thanked others for their contributions.
April 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Without going into any more detail for now, kudos (or +1390) to Kit. I will let the discussion play out for a day or so.
April 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thank everyone for your help. It may seem trivial to you, but I want to be sure and learn about this sort of thing.

Not just from memory, or a chart, but to be able to work it out at the table because I will often be dealing with non-a priori situations where I know that some combinations are not possible or less likely, etc.
April 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is true that the OP was careless. Here are the entire two hands in 6s:

NORTH (Dummy)
QT85
J
AKJT95
98

SOUTH (Declarer)
A63
K4
64
AKQ632
April 21, 2016
Jim Perkins edited this comment April 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes we need 6s to go with 6s (and the A . . . unless we clairvoyently see that the K is single and we can ruff out the s and reach them with the Q, but let's leave that aside).

Please bear with me. Say for argument we play the A and each OPP plays small. We come back to hand, draw trump and lead low toward the remaining KJxxx and LHO plays small. So now the only relevant cases are LHO started with Qxx and RHO xx, or LHO with xxx and RHO Qx, right? I am not claiming this line is right, just if we start this way, aren't we in a toss up?
April 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It also fails to Qx if you are ever inclined to play for the drop.
April 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a good and important question. 2/1 unconditionally GF.
April 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pretty clear that there is at least 1 void. It's a blunt instrument. But it gets to 6 here. I may get to 6 with no short if she's has two major suit As. Maybes 7 of partner has enough imagination. And she may. Probably not. But show me anyone that is always good at bidding 7-6 hands. And I'll show you a . . . player at least suspected of cheating.
April 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just so you know pard, when I bid 5 here the message is, “I expect to make this without you so count your cover cards.”
April 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is only 1 eleven point balanced hand that even causes a problem: AKx, Axxx, xx, xxxx. Here you have 11 HCP, 3 QTs and 8 cards in your two longest suits. You almost have to open. But note that this is going to be a 1 opener, followed by 1NT or 2MAJ. The only bad thing is if partner gets too aggressive leading a D. With a 5 card suit, and especially if my points are in the long suit, I am ready to open and treat is as a bad 12.
April 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My name is not John.

The big advantage here is the 2way 2bids.

1 is never a hand with 11-16 points and longer s than s. 1 is always 4+ unless the second bid is 1NT, in which case it could be as short as 2. I suppose that 1MAJ might show 4 with 3 honors even if 4-4-2-3.

The other advantage is 2 pt NT ranges other than 11-13 and 14-16.

I like to use the 1 opening as a slam finding tool and therefore 17 works better for me. I feel like the 11-16 range is manageable, falling into two nice chunks 11/12 - 13/14 and 13/14-15/16. I don't open many 11 point hands.

Putting more and more and more into the 1 by lowering the point count is not, in my opinion, the path to success with a forcing club system. (I tried it as low as 13+, with 9 HCP as the lower limit for opening a 1 bid) Especially when you are working with a two-way 1.
April 13, 2016
Jim Perkins edited this comment April 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 = 17+ or 11-16 with long s (may have a second suit)
1 = 11/12-13 Balanced or 11-16 with long s or 11-16 with 4-4-4-1 any singleton other than s
1 = 11-16 with long usually 5+ s but can be 4-4-1-4.
1 = 11-16 with long usually 5+ s but can be 4-4-1-4.
1NT = 14-16 Balanced.
2 = weak s or strong s
2 = weak s or strong s
2 = weak s or strong s
2 = various freak (6+/5+) two suiters or strong s
Three level and up = typical pre-empts (or, with modifications to 2s meanings, the weak/strong x-fer can continue)

1 Responses:

1 = <8 points (and no 6 card MAJ)
1 = 8+ points, 4+ s
1 = 8+ points, 4+ s
1NT = 8+ points, 4+ s
2 = 8+ points, 4+ s
2 = 4-7 points, 6+ s or 11-13- Balanced or GF (13+) with long s
2 = 4-7 points, 6+ or 14+ Balanced or GF (13+) with long Ss
2 = GF with various minor suit holdings
2NT = GF 13+-15 or 18+ Balanced

Opener's second bid clarifies:

2 or minimum accepted x-fer = weak hand with s (and fit). With strong hand opener must avoid making a minimum-esque bid.

NT Ranges:

11-13 = 1 then 1NT
14-16 = 1NT
17-18 = 1 then 1NT
19-20 = 1 then, over 1 . . . 1 (kokish style, forces 1) then 1NT
21-22 = 1 then over 1 . . . 2NT
23-24 = 1 then, over 1 . . . 1 (kokish style, forces 1) then 2NT
25-26 = 1 then over 1 . . . 3NT

etc.
April 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You guys seriously got me. I am getting together with a new partner and went to edit an existing CC to use with the new partner.

I was livid!
April 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I posted the hand after Yu and I got into an extended . . . discussion. I chose 1 at the table and got a good result this time.

I see from the responses to this poll, that texture never matters in this debate to this audience. So I am revising my views that I do whatever I can to avoid declaring NT with these hands that never gain from receiving the opening lead.
March 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Adding points for coordinated honors in s and s, I still don't see this as anything other than a very mundane 14 count. As my preference is rather more for downgrading bad 15's than upgrading good 14's . . . this does not qualify. Excuse me while I go retch.
March 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Always make the play that works out best in the post mortem. :-) I even threw it into a lecture for VERY beginners. (“Why do we lead partner's suit?” “So that when it doesn't work out, it's her fault.” And then, more seriously: “But it's also quite often right.”)
March 27, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have several scenes mapped out. And I have floated a couple of inquiries. But I am no professional screen writer so I am sure that someone more talented than I will pick it up.

Sorkin could make this into a true thriller for the masses. Among other things, regardless of what we all believe here (and I do), there are facts that call into question the motives of the accuser. Ambiguity = tension. In the movies at least.
March 27, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I could have been a MLB player. I just never worked at it and I wasn't good enough anyway.”
March 13, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top