Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Kopera
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 478 479 480 481
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East has 98xx.
June 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My guess would be a big loss when responder holds s and a small gain with s, overall negative.

BTW, is it still on BPH? IMHO, either way is a negative.
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A speeding ticket as it were…
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“To claim East bid 3NT rather than 2NT because of the hesitation doesn't make sense to me.”

Bidding 3NT at all doesn't make sense to me. [cynicism]Maybe it was one of those “bid something insane, then claim it couldn't have been suggested by the hesitation”, that 2NT was at some risk, but 3NT not so.
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I am not sure what he could have been thinking of other than deciding between 2S and 3S.”

Disclosing the West hand might help with that…
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am unable to construct an East hand consistent with the auction…
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you duck when North leads from Hxxx, South is going to switch (to s).
June 19
Michael Kopera edited this comment June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Not only does 3NT make whenever spades are 4-4 or blocked…”

Well, there is still the matter of the suit…
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It looks like it was board 5 (spots similar), June 10 afternoon. If so, E-W ended in 2 (their 4-2 fit), not something I can begin to explain – seems to me the final contract would be 1NT (or 3NT if West got adventuresome).
June 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“That normally shows 5-5 distribution…”

I've never seen it played that way or even suggested as a possibility…reply above excepted.
June 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My bad, confused Rich/Richard.

I agree with setting up the last , if partner doesn't have the A cashing the s alone won't be sufficient to beat 1NT, so might as well set up a sure winner while there is still an entry to it.
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On that layout, declarer will take his 7 tricks first (2, 2, 3).
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“W should have balanced with 1NT.”

West could have, but see below.

“W could have, and should have, doubled for penalty.”

If East's double is takeout (and it is), West's double is also takeout – East could have a penalty pass, he could have an (unbiddable) unbalanced hand that includes s.

“E should have doubled for takeout.”

The “standard” action. East apparently got cold feet. If he is going to do that, better not to “upgrade”. Speaking of which, I doubt that the “upgrade” was going to make for a better auction.

“E should have cue-bid 2♥ to show his shape.”

2 would presumably be a 2-suiter, that's not what East has.

“E should have done something else.”

Not opening 1 (and then passing) comes to mind.

“E's pass suggested a balanced 17-19 and W was right to pass and take the small change.”

Had East shown 17-19 balanced, West would have transferred to s and played there. I don't think it is possible to construct an East hand with 1 (or fewer) s, so defending in our 7(+) card fit seems perfectly reasonable – it may well be easier to declare on defense.
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe Roman…
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Almost all the HCP in the majors, balanced, matchpoints, clearly some NT bid is in order. Given matchpoints, 1NT for me, will pay off to 14-11. Second choice 2NT. No 3rd choice.
June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North has good reason to think it not 21-22 HCP…many playing tricks in a minor also seems unlikely.
June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Especially if the opponents know that is what is being played…
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Uh, no…
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“ A bigger problem is teams that end up in a bracket that they don't like because they mis-report their total points when registering.”

Is it really the case that bracket assignments are based on reported masterpoints rather than the actual holdings? How quaint…
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Drury was invented so a passed hand with a ”limit raise“…”

Given that the original convention didn't promise a fit, I'd question that claim.

“It had to do with ”light opening bids“ by the standard of the day regarding ”light,“ not absurd opening bids…”

Not so sure about that claim either, afaik it came into play opposite absurd opening bids.
June 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 478 479 480 481
.

Bottom Home Top