Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kit Woolsey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Okay, I'm curious. I never considered passing, while both Chip and Geoff think pass is the correct bid. Somebody is off base. Perhaps we can learn something.

I would appreciate it if a reader who has simulation access would run this simulation. Here are the parameters I suggest:

North: 10-11 HCP, 3+ clubs, 4 or 5 hearts, no singletons or voids.

East and West: Less than 12 HCP. Not (6+ card suit with 8+ HCP)

Of course one could quibble with these parameters, but I believe they are good enough to show something if there is something to be shown.

Please get the results both in 3 and in 3NT.
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So what am I supposed to do when declarer ducks with his AJx and I don't have a singleton to shift to?
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rainer,

If North were not a passed hand, I agree that North should bid 2. But as a passed hand, is this forcing? I'm not sure, and I'll bet North wasn't sure either. That was probably the reason for North's huddle.

I do not agree that 3 is a “courtesy raise” as a passed hand. It is a true invite.
March 10
Kit Woolsey edited this comment March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it is obvious. Would East, who has passed twice, now have a minute huddle over the 3 call?
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I saw the South hand, passing wasn't even on my radar. Vulnerable, somewhere between 50% and 100% to rattle off 6 club tricks, an outside ace, and partner inviting. Passing is betting that there are 9 tricks in clubs but not in notrump, and laying 2 to 1 IMP odds on that bet. I would have bid 3, not 3NT, but that is not the issue. I am stunned that 5 out of 5 players passed.

As to the UI, it seems to me that the 3 call itself shows extra strength. The concept that it preempts a balance is nonsense. Both opponents have passed twice. Do you really think they will balance now on an auction which would appear to be a misfit. Even if they do, they will then certainly sell to 3 having been happy to have pushed the opponents up a level.

I would agree that the hesitation implies something different from the 10-count unsuitable for a 2NT call which would normally be expected on this auction, but what is different isn't clear and it is far from obvious to me that it suggests bidding 3NT – in fact, perhaps it suggests not bidding 3NT. I don't see how it shows “extra strength”. What extra strength – another jack?

All that being said, if one is using the poll results as a basis for a ruling I agree with Roy that the ruling makes no sense.
March 10
Kit Woolsey edited this comment March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The more people they test, the more cases they will find. I would guess that the jump from 1000 to 4000 to 7000 in a 2 week period isn't a representation of the increase in people getting the disease. It is likely more a representation of an increase in the number of people being tested.

I'm not saying that the number of people getting the virus isn't increasing. Of course it is. What I am saying is that the rate increase in the number of known cases is not necessarily the rate of increase in the actual cases. These numbers can be very misleading if not examined carefully.
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, David. That is much more in line with what I would have estimated, and I believe a more accurate assessment of the percentage of serious cases.
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yu,

There is something in these statistics which I'm trying to get a handle on. Perhaps you can help me.

The WHO report states that of about 50,000 cases, 13.8% have severe disease. That does sound grim.

My problem is that we are talking about 50,000 KNOWN cases. It seems logical that there are many more cases which are not known about for many reasons – people not feeling sick enough to go to the hospital, etc.

If there are, say, 10 times as many cases which we don't know about, then the rate of severe cases would be 1.38%, not 13.8%.

You are clearly better informed than I am about this issue. Would you be able to explain how cases which aren't known about fit into the statistics.
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure North's limit raise could be better. Make the queen of clubs the queen of hearts, giving North Q10xx AKQx xx xxx. From North's point of view that is a better hand than the actual hand, since the queen of hearts is a definite trick while the queen of clubs only might be of value.

But look what happens. Opposite the “better” hand, 4 is a considerably worse contract than opposite the “worse” hand. There is no bidding system which can determine this.

The point is that there is little value in having a bunch of different ways to show different gradations of invites.
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps. However, if there is any chance that the opening leader will wrongly continue king and another, thinking you have a doubleton, then you should not play the 2 from Qxx.
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An easy way to see this is nonsense is as follows:

In your example, when you mentally picked the 3 of diamonds and found West had it, the claim was that made East a favorite to hold the queen of clubs. However, had you mentally picked the 2 of diamonds, what you would see would make West a favorite to hold the queen of clubs. Obviously, your mental pick doesn't change the odds on the location of the queen of clubs.
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why do say it is hard for N-S to bid 3? If South made a takeout double, competing to 3 over 2 would be trivial with the North hand. From North's point of view, N-S figure to have at least 9 diamonds and E-W figure to have at least 8 hearts. That makes the trump total 17, and bidding 3 over 2 contracts for 17 total tricks (9 for 3 plus 8 for 2). It wouldn't be a remotely close decision.
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not strong enough to overcall 1NT, so what else is there but double?
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not much. Maybe the opponents have Qx opposite Jxx of diamonds, and the 2 overcall will keep them out of 3NT when that is their only game. It doesn't pay to worry about the ghosts when there is no evidence that the ghosts exist.
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner is a passed hand, so you aren't missing a major-suit game. Even if partner has a 5-card major, it is likely that diamonds will play just as well or better if you buy the contract at the 2-level. It is far more important to stop the opponents from finding their 8-card major-suit fit if they have one, or get them too high if they don't have a fit.
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While I would have overcalled 1NT, it looks to me like N-S achieved their par result, which is any plus score on a part-score hand.
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would overcall 2. Very descriptive for competitive purposes, and gobbles up potentially important bidding space for the opponents when it is probably their hand. Only downside is going for a number, and that won't happen often.
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It doesn't have to be the exact hand I gave. I said if declarer has something like this hand. He might have a diamond finesse to take. Perhaps Kxx AKQxx Kx Kxx (since it is matchpoints, the difference between down 1 and down 2 is meaningful).

My point is that I was unable to come up with any construction where a club discard could cost, and I could see the possible need for retaining a third diamond.
March 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Declarer is marked with at least 3 spades. I can't see how he can have 4 clubs, since that would leave partner with 6 diamonds and a clear 2 overcall. Thus, I can afford to discard a spade and a club. It might be important to retain the third diamond for an exit later in the hand. For example, suppose declarer has something like:

Kxx AKQxx KQ 1CKxx.

After 3 rounds of hearts, he leads a diamond. Partner wins, and plays a spade. Declarer wins, cashes a diamond, and exits with a spade. It would be nice if I had another diamond to play.
March 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If East splits when you lead the 5 of spades, how do you propose to hold him to 1 trump trick? Say you win, cross to dummy with a diamond, and lead a spade. He wins, and exits with a club. If you ruff in dummy, that is dummy's last trump and you can't finesse him. If you ruff in your hand, you can't get to dummy for another spade finesse since he can ruff the first round of hearts.

If you duck when he splits, he plays another club and it transposes to the same position.
March 4
.

Bottom Home Top