Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Beyrouti
1 2 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4 lead?
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After voting for a club lead, I regretted it… even though I see Sylvia Shi's endorsement above. Craig Biddle threw me off track by the way he phrased the problem. This is not a lead double. This is a rare but true penalty double. Partner knows they won't make it, no matter what I lead. Partner knows that declarer won't come to 13 tricks without going thru diamonds - from the auction. So partner has… the A! But I won't lead a diamond just in case I'm all wet. I'll lead a club just in case Sylvia is right…
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“other”
Dec. 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't it the case that the inverted minor usually denies a 4-card major? But that's an aside.
While it's true that North can see a diamond slam the minute his partner opens 1 I would not suppress the major, even and especially when it is 4 cards only. Why?
Because the potential for a grand slam on a 4-4 fit is real with the diamond suit providing the discards whereas, in diamonds, the limit could be 6 since there are no discards on the 4-4 spade suit.
To me the issue on this hand is not so much whether to raise diamonds or show the spades; the issue is how to reach the grand after a 1 response.
In the absence of any opposition bidding we should be able to reach 7. However, on the actual OP hand, with so much preempting in hearts, I'd fear bad breaks especially in the spade suit. So I'd settle for a grand in diamonds (no bad break possible) - if we can reach it. I'd follow exactly the path North took and it is up to South to bid 7D as someone pointed out above.
Merry Christmas!
Dec. 25, 2017
Michael Beyrouti edited this comment Dec. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4?!?
Dec. 24, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps we should replace the word “comparable” with “consistent with” (the withdrawn call).
Dec. 24, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let's say the opening is 1 by offender's partner and let's say that his partner (initial offender) now bids 4. Is that a “comparable call” (to pass)? If you prefer, let's say the first response is J2NT and responder eventually takes it to 4. Couldn't it be that “Pass” has shot up in value facing a 1 opening in 1st or 2nd seat?
Dec. 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No one has mentioned the intrafinesse…
And I am surprised that Patrick Laborde, the man I call a walking encyclopedia, hasn't chipped in yet…
Dec. 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While there is such a thing as Stone-Age bidding (strong twos for example), the Hardy list given in the OP conflates things and is misleading. With all due respect, I disagree with Hardy on points 1, 5 and 6. SAYC and ACOL are not “Stone Age”. It's misleading and even erroneous to compare 2/1 to SAYC or ACOL and call the latter Stone Age. And I resent calling 2/1 “Standard”. Standard is standard and is the Standard we have known and practiced over the last 40 years if not more. 2/1 may be a branch off Standard, sufficiently different to be given a new name, but shouldn't be called Standard.
By the way, all 2/1 does is relieve opener of the stress/strain of his rebid and put the burden on responder's shoulders. Better? I don't know: some gains, some losses… it's a trade-off; a compromise, like everything else in bridge… and in life.
Dec. 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So is 2/1-GF: playable but not perfectly.
I find nothing wrong in teaching SAYC. It's a first step towards learning 2/1. I taught bridge for 20 years. Most of my students are club (duplicate) players and most of them converted to 2/1 after a few years because it's the “in thing”.
Dec. 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Doug, you need one more constraint in your simulation: That North has 5 spades. Now tell us how many spades are expected in the South hand.
Dec. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard,
First, this isn't a question, it's a statement. In fact it's a revelation! You're informing us that the two hands presented by Avon Wilsmore are two hands played by Belladonna. They were presented in reverse chronological order for dramatic effect. The first one, played in 1974, GB's partner was BG. The second one was played in 1972 with WA.
So now, your question becomes: how is Belladonna's action on one hand with one partner relevant to his action on another hand with another partner, two years apart; what does this show? What does it prove? It's up to Avon to answer.

Now, my two-cents worth. I find Garozzo's 1 response on the first hand to be smart bridge. Not a psyche. I prefer it to 1NT. As for Belladonna's pass… twice?! Equally smart bridge!! The vibrations around the table told him to subside. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, what is questionable are the opponents' actions! They have 23 HCP and they try to rest in 1 ?!!! This is 1974: either advancer should bid more than 1 or doubler has a big hand and shouldn't pass. Bravo to Belladonna to smell the trap.

In all of Avon's “evidence” hands, my suspicions were more directed toward the other side. In other words, toward their opponents, no toward the presumed cheating pair whose actions were “shown” to be dubious. Was he trying to deflect our attention? I wonder. I am expecting a big surprise at the end of this spade series.
Dec. 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How did Bob Hamman end in 4 if his partner never made a bid?
Dec. 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your whole spade series is radioactive…
Dec. 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Avon,
we're really on edge here!… For your next post, may I suggest you “show” us the 7, 8, 9 and 10 of spades all together in one shot?
Dec. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
very well said.
Nov. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
dead
Nov. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Next time stick to Indica.
Nov. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
wanna talk about them?
Oct. 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Anything pre-emotive is not alertable.
Sept. 24, 2017
1 2 3
.

Bottom Home Top