Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kit Woolsey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Clearly the question was worded badly. Even if one thinks pass is the percentage action, I can't imagine any real bridge player thinking that bidding 3 (without UI) is unreasonable.

The real interpretation of the question is: May South bid 3 in the light of the UI. That fact that there were many no votes indicates that the readers interpreted the poll as it was intended, not as it was worded.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course if partner had doubled 3 is wouldn't be a pure penalty double. What it would be is a balanced 17 or 18-count with 3-card heart support, typically 5-3-2-3 shape, where he is strong enough that the believes it is our hand and wants me to choose between defending 3 doubled and declaring 3.

If I had to guess what partner has for his huddle, I would guess that this is the most likely hand. If partner has 4-card heart support and more than minimal values, he will generally just up and bid 3. It is the strong hands without 4-card heart support where he has a real problem.

Thus, I do not agree that partner is choosing between 3 and pass. I'll bet he is choosing between double and pass. I do not think he “almost bid 3”.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Clearly 6 is a great contract. 6 is fair, and may depend upon which minor is led. In real life, it would be difficult to find 6 instead of 6.

One important point is that the quality of the field has nothing to do with the decision. If you go right, you win 1 matchpoint vs. all tables which went wrong. If you go wrong, you lose 1 matchpoint vs. all tables which went right. This will be true regardless of what percentage of pairs who bid the slam. The only time the quality of the field makes a difference is if there will be some pairs who will be in other than game or slam in a major, and even in the weakest field that doesn't look likely.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Looking at a couple of the example hands:

David: AKxxx Jx x AQxxx

Robert: AKxxx Jxx xx Axx

How does bidding 3 fare? It looks to me like on balance it will do better than passing out 3. I'm unlikely to get doubled unless I run into a bad heart split, since the opponents don't know whose hand it is – they will be happy to have pushed us to the 3-level. I would be unlucky to go down more than 1 trick and my be making. The opponents have a good chance to make 3. Most of the time selling out is the winning action only when both 3 and 3 are going down, and the odds appear to be against that.

It is worth noting that on both of these hands, the trump total is 17 (7 + 10 for David's hand, 8 + 9 for Robert's hand). That makes bidding 3 a 1 trick overbid via LOTT (bidding 3 over 3 contracts for 18 total tricks), which is usually the winning action unless the hand is defensively oriented. With all my strength in hearts, this hand is offensively oriented. As the LOTT suggests, the odds are that at least one of the 3-level contracts is making.

As seen, bidding 3 may be right even when partner holds the most unfavorable hand types for this action. If he has a more favorable hand type, then bidding 3 is definitely going to be better than passing out 3.

I don't disagree with anything David says, except when he says that bidding 3 is actually cheating. In my judgment, bidding 3 is automatic, not close. If I were polled, I would tell the director that 3 is the only bid on my radar. If I were in this position at the table, I would bid 3. A committee might disallow the call. I would have no problem with that, since other players might think that pass is a LA.

This is simply a judgment call, and in my judgment pass isn't a LA. My judgment is based on the “bad” hand types such as the ones presented. If I can see that 3 may well be the winning action even opposite those hands, then passing isn't a LA. If I see that bidding 3 is likely a losing action opposite those hand types, then passing would be a LA.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Having not jumped to 3 the previous round (which South might well have done), a 3 call now looks automatic to me. You aren't going to sell to 3 when your side has at least 8 trumps (maybe 9) and the opponents have at least 9 trumps (maybe 10). In addition, you have strong trumps. It doesn't look close.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Inviting with distribution is a bad idea. The problem is that partner can't make an intelligent evaluation. He will accept on many hands where game is bad, and he will reject on many hands where game is good.

Just go high or go low. On this hand, with 2 aces and 4-card support I think East should go high.
Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When does it gain?
Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After 1M-1NT, we play:

2 = clubs and another suit
2 = diamonds and the other major.

I have no idea if this is best.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would cash the king of clubs (getting the news), and then lead the jack of diamonds. It will be very difficult for East to not cover from Qxx, since not covering may give South a no-play contract – imagine South having the same hand without the 9 of diamonds.

If East has the long clubs, I'll take a ruffing finesse in diamonds and hope that works and the queen of hearts is onside.

If West has the long clubs, it is very unlikely that West has 4 diamonds and the queen of hearts. So, I'll let the jack of diamonds ride.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Only if you consider it the “opponent's suit” when they open 1 of a minor. I don't consider it their suit.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think what Ed is saying is that you are required to give the opponents a proper explanation of your systemic agreements, and not doing so is an infraction. Thus, what caused you to give the proper explanation (whether you woke up, something partner said, or anything else) doesn't matter. Giving the proper explanation is simply following the rules.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Obviously this poll is in conjunction with the previous posting on this auction, where some readers suggested a 3 “Q-bid” instead of a 3 invite, saying that the 3 call is a stronger invite.

I think this is wrong. You don't need a million different ways to invite. One simple invite which tells partner what you are inviting is quite sufficient.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While certainly both the opening bid and the 2 call are questionable, I do not agree that the reason South should sit the double is because he decided he had an opening bid. All South is saying with his 2 call is that he expects on balance a better result from declaring 2 of a red suit than from defending 1NT.

Let's suppose the auction had gone: 1-P-1NT-P;? Would you pass, or would you bid 2? I bet you would bid 2. The reason you would do so is that you expect a better result contracting for 8 tricks in a red suit than contracting for 7 tricks in notrump.

Is the actual situation really any different? When you choose to defend 1NT, you are in essence contracting to take 7 tricks in notrump, since that is what you need for a plus score.

I will grant that the numbers are different. By passing the double you have a shot at +150 or -280 instead of, say, +120 or -100 if you are declaring 1NT. However, the theme is the same. Choosing to defend 1NT (doubled or not) is contracting to take 7 tricks with no trump suit.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Martin,

The way to come to the correct conclusion is to pretend you are playing behind screens. You open 1NT on this bad 17-count, and wake up and realize that you are in a 10-12 situation. What should you do?

The answer is very clear. You describe your opening 1NT as 10-12. If partner bids anything, you describe his bid as what it would mean in the 10-12 environment. This is exactly what partner will be doing on his side of the screen. It is vital that the explanations are identical. If they are not, then one of the opponents will have received MI. The fact that you have misbid is your private knowledge. You do not have to share this knowledge with your screenmate, since that information will not be given on the other side of the screen. Since there is no UI involved, you are free to extricate yourself in whatever manner you see fit.

The same is true without screens. The proper systemic explanation is 10-12, and the proper systemic explanation of partner's call is that it shows the majors. This is exactly what you are supposed to tell the opponents; the same thing you would have told your screenmate if playing behind screens.

The only difference here is that you have the UI from partner's explanation that you have screwed up. You are not allowed to use this UI, and must continue the bidding under the assumption that you are in a strong notrump environment. With screens you would not have this UI, so you could do as you please.

Explaining that partner's 2 call is a transfer would be doubly wrong. It would be MI to the opponents, since that is not a correct description of the call in your methods. In addition it would be UI to partner, since now he would know what you have done.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They both went wrong by failing to bid 4 when it was their turn to call.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
100% accurate, assuming you know what is systematically correct.

If you don't know who is right, I don't think you can call the director, since that in itself would be UI. I believe you have to take the position that your agreement is what you thought when you opened 1NT. In real life, I imagine that this isn't the issue – that you do know the agreements.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The main cost of this is that you virtually lose all ability to penalize the opponents when they step into a misfit. Also, when you have the 13-15 hand and it is you who are in trouble, you will be in trouble you likely wouldn't have been in had you started with the more normal double.
Feb. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner would have to be a mind-reader to figure out that this is the reason you are asking.
Feb. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had overlooked the squeeze. In the variations where the trumps are 4-1, I now think that ace of hearts, heart ruff, and run everything is best. This makes whenever the queen of hearts is doubleton or tripleton, the queen of clubs is doubleton, or the same player holds both queens. It also leaves open the possibility of taking the club finesse if that is indicated by whatever distributional information turns up. This now looks best to me regardless of who has the 4 trumps.
Feb. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A winning heart finesse will get you to 12 tricks (5 trump tricks, 3 heart tricks, 2 club tricks, 2 diamond tricks) even if the black suits are bad. If both black suits split, then you won't need the heart finesse. So:

Cash KQ of spades. Then:

If spades are 3-2, draw the last trump and play AK of clubs. If clubs behave, set up the clubs. Otherwise, take a heart finesse.

If spades are 4-1. cash ace of clubs. If queen drops, ace of hearts, heart ruff, draw trumps, and claim with 5 trump tricks, 3 club tricks, 2 heart tricks, 2 diamond tricks. Else:

If North has 4 trumps, take a heart finesse, ruff a heart, draw trumps and claim.

If South has 4 trumps, cash king of clubs. If queen drops, ram clubs through South, eventually overruffing him, drawing his last trump, and dummy will be good. If queen doesn't drop, take the heart finesse.
Feb. 7
.

Bottom Home Top