Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kit Woolsey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True, you would want to be in slam opposite that hand. However, it is a perfecto. Even opposite that hand, slam isn't laydown – you need 2-2 trumps or spades coming in for 4 tricks.

The problem is that partner is going to like hands which aren't quite as good. Partner knows you know he is limited, so he will be very aggessive. For example, give him Axx AJxxx xxx Ax and he will certainly make a move above 4, perhaps driving to slam, and even 5 is far from cold. It just isn't worth looking for the perfecto.
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5-3-3-2 non-min, 3NT. 5-3-3-2 min, 3 then 4 over 3.
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nothing very complicated. Basically:

3 is all minimums. 3 asks. Then by steps, some shortness, some 5-4-2-2, some 6-3-2-2.

With non-minimum, same steps starting with 3.

Obviously responder can ask the shortness or the side 4-bagger.
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What you suggest is less efficient. Two reasons:

1) There are plenty of “minimums” which will be accepting if responder has a limit raise. Just about any hand with a singleton is an acceptance unless the hand is really horrid. Thus, you cannot afford to bid 3 with that hand – you bid 3 to show a minimum, but then accept if partner shows a limit raise with 3, but show what you have in the agreed manner if partner inquires with 3. Playing it your way, the “non-minimums” would have too wide a range. Opener needs to distinguish between a minimum distributional hand and a non-minimum distributional hand for slam purposes.

2) If responder has slam interest opposite a minimum, valuable space has been lost if opener is bidding 3. Opener will not have room to show his shape in the same manner he can when he responds 3 and responder inquires with 3. Of course if opener has a non-minimum he shows something about his shape immediately with his bid of 3 or higher.
March 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While I don't care for the 3 call, it should have worked well on this hand. East has a trivial 4NT RKC call, and the rest will be easy.

Yes, I understand that if West has only 2 aces, the absolutely wrong hand, and the enemy cards lie badly, that 5 could go down. So be it. The cost of missing a making slam is just as great as the cost of being in 5 down 1.

Of course West should have bid more than 4, and the small slam would have been reached. However, the cue-bidding auction makes it difficult to get to the grand slam, while RKC would have made it trivial.
March 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is a good line, and perhaps better than playing a club at trick 2. Still, any sensible approach should succeed.
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Absolutely
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He can claim whatever he wants. That shouldn't matter. The fact of the matter is that he made an illegal call, and that illegal call should be penalized, not merely admonished. If it is not penalized, then there is no point in having the rule.
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I apologize. I was unaware that the rules were worded that way. I think the rules are absurd, but that is another matter. The rules are the rules.

But what is this whole post about? There is nothing to send to a recorder. If a pair's stated notrump range is, say, 13-17, the rules say it is illegal for the player to open 1NT on a hand with 10 HCP. If that happens you just call the director, and the director makes whatever adjustment and/or procedural penalty the director thinks is fit. That's all there is to it. Furthermore, if the pair is penalized once for this you can bet they won't do it again.

All this doesn't have anything to do with implicit understandings or disclosure to the opponents. The out of range opening 1NT bid which is being discussed here is simply an illegal call.

Am I missing something?
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can't legislate what a player may bid on a hand. A player may make the bid he thinks is likely to be most successful.

If a pro opens 1NT on some 10-counts, he is risking getting to a 20 HCP game. If he opens 1NT on some 19-counts, he is risking missing a 26 HCP game. If he opens with a singleton major, he is risking playing in a 5-1 fit.

The pro may think his client's declarer play is so weak that the pro is willing to take these risks rather than open 1 of a suit, since opening 1NT virtually guarantees that the pro will get to declare.

You may question the pro's judgment on this. But it is the pro's decision to make, and he is entitled to make it.

If there is some evidence that the client is in some way hedging to protect against the oddball hands, then that would be an indication of an implicit partnership understanding. However, if the client is so weak that the pro feels the need to take these actions, I would bet that the client has no clue what the pro is doing. If the client has a balanced 10-count the client will bid 3NT, and it might be a 20 HCP 3NT. If the client has a balanced 7-count the client will pass, and a 26 HCP 3NT might be missed.
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Obviously South should have driven to game. However, I disagree with those who said South should have bid 2 initially. If partner passes 1, do you really think you will have missed a game?
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We all agree that passing 3NT is a bad bridge bid. The problem is that the client doesn't think that way. In his mind, he has described his hand, his pro partner has bid 3NT, and 3NT by the pro ends all auctions. The client doesn't think he is being offered a choice, since he expects his pro partner to be making the decisions. I have seen this happen often is a pro-client partnership.

Thus, the client didn't field a psych. In the client's mind, he was bidding his hand the way he is supposed to bid it.

It was the pro who was in essence making a controlled psych. He knew his partner's tendencies. He was confident that if his partner bid 2H or 3H and he then bid 3NT, his partner would pass. Thus, he could safely bid 1 before getting to his favorite 3NT contract.

This isn't an explicit or even implicit agreement. I doubt if the pro ever told the client “when I bid 3NT, you pass”. The pro doesn't need to do that. He knows that this is what the client will do. That is the client's nature.

We are entitled to take advantage of what we know about our partner's tendencies. We do this all the time. For example, suppose on some competitive auction partner makes a penalty double and we have a hand where we might pull. If we know partner is the sort of player who won't make a penalty double unless he has the nuts, we will pass. If we know partner is the sort of player who may make speculative doubles, we would be inclined to pull. There is nothing illegal about this. In Utopia the opponents should be made aware of partner's tendencies, but in real life this often can't be done.

Perhaps after the auction is over the pro might have said something like: My partner will usually be passing 3NT regardless of his hand. That is not clear. Other than that, unless at the table the pro bid “the third and final notrump” by folding up his cards after making his call, I think we have to live with it. The pro is allowed to bid in whatever way he believes he will get the best result, taking what he knows about his partner's tendencies into account.
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assuming a standard structure with strong notrumps, I don't see how that is playable. What is opener supposed to do with a balanced minimum after a 2-level negative double by responder.

Your two examples are quite different. On the first one, opener didn't have to bid. On the second one, opener does have to bid.

Are you sure Robson meant to include the 2-level negative doubles for good-bad?
March 8
Kit Woolsey edited this comment March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So let's say partner has 10xx xxxx xx xxxx. You want to be in 4, and there is no way partner is going to bid it when you bid 3. You can't put that kind of pressure on partner.

Sure, 4 might go down if partner has the wrong hand. But not bidding game for fear of that wrong hand is losing bridge.
March 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When you virtually have game in your own hand, bid game. Keep in mind that West's 3 call doesn't necessarily show a long diamond suit. It is simply a game try.
March 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Simple rule:

If you have done something other than pass and you are not in a game force, then:

Partner's 2NT over an enemy 2, 2, 2, or after you have doubled 2, 2, or 2, is NEVER natural.

One exception: 2NT in response to a negative double (not any other kind of double) is natural.
March 7
Kit Woolsey edited this comment March 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The partner of a limited hand is never forced to do anything. He knows the limits of the hand. Granted on an auction such as this it would be unlikely that he would pass it out if opener passes, but if he chooses to do so that is on his head. All opener's pass says is that opener doesn't have a clear preference for declaring or defending.
March 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you feel you have to ask whether or not 4 is forcing, the answer is yes.
March 6
Kit Woolsey edited this comment March 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course we are willing to rely on something which makes us play better. I read the Bridge World magazine carefully every month. I believe the knowledge from this makes me play better. Is the Bridge World a “mind enhancing drug” when it comes to bridge playing ability. One could certainly argue that it is.

Of course we are talking about actual substances taken into the body. Suppose the night before a big tournament I am having difficulty getting to sleep. I know that if I don't get enough sleep I won't play my best. So I take a sleeping pill, get my sleep, and are properly rested for the next day. That sleeping pill certainly made me play better than if I hadn't taken it. Should this be banned? Where does one draw the line?
March 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I had a fairy godmother who said: “I can cast a spell which will allow you to always think through the situation clearly and work out the percentage opening lead”, I would be quite happy to accept it.
March 6
.

Bottom Home Top