Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Cassel
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The only reason I can see supporting a roll back to +230 is the likelihood that a North who doesn't know whether the 2 is alertable is not likely to raise to 3.

I think West's action was an attempt to poison the well. A surreptitious glance at an opponent's convention card would make it obvious that they were not playing WJS. You don't have to pick it up to see a check box.

We may never know what North would do in the absence of that call. If I was directing and felt that West was manipulating I would have no qualms about -980 & +230. A 3 prebalance borders on being preposterous.

If West had passed they might have won the event or they might have finished third. After West's 3 call I think they earned their third. The OP really has no clue, given a screened event, what North would do. If he thinks North would have passed (not being a very good player) then why muck around in an auction that doesn't belong to you? Something smells rotten and bringing it to bridgewinners for a proper legal interpretation seems like an effort to exonerate an inexcusable call.

I'd have a lot more sympathy if, having passed, North shrugged his shoulders, and bid 3 as a double shot. I wonder if the person consulted thought the MI link had been broken by West's call.

See Law 12C 1
(b) If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the 17 Chapter IV – Irregularities infraction) or by a wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.
May 7, 2014
Mike Cassel edited this comment May 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How do you play a delayed takeout double? Just a desire to compete? Basically the same strength but a desire to hear opponents clarify their strain? I might be more inclined to bid 6 if the immediate double had control-richer implications.

To my way of thinking, where slower shows more, I would want to double immediately with more suspect values because I might not be able to double later. If I double later I must be willing to contract for more tricks at a higher level and, thus, need a better hand.

For me as well, the opportunities to defend multi are few & far between.
May 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
glad to see someone other than Kit who creates entertaining bridge movies.
I would have titled your article Canasta - a Bridge Movie
I almost didn't click on it.
May 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An unfortunate experience particularly given the conditions of contest: 8 is enough. The less experienced players are subjected to a contentious disagreement, a disruption in play without a director call, a non-claim claim by the defense, and huddling without reason.

These games are opportunities for more experienced players to model good behavior, composure, etc.

At the table I might have said: "Mike, I don't want to call the director, but we are still on the second hand and 1/2 our time is gone. You are in a hopeless contract. I am going to hold onto my winning K and my partner would appear to have at least a trick too… You haven't run that suit. Can we speed things up or do I need to call the director?

In a serious contest you really have no alternative if you cannot make a claim to call the director.
May 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Declarer can fly A and pitch club on K. Then play on diamonds to establish dummy. You get only 3, 1 & 2.
Down 3 NV for 500.
May 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The defining question for me is whether the purported utility of having two routes to 2N to distinguish varying kinds of support for opener's minor ‘trumps’ the simple treatment that the only route to 2N is via NMF and therefore, 2N is logically the relay to 3 for signoff.

Yes, you can get fancy using the useful space relay to bid beyond 3 for further specialized sequences, but that wasn't the point of this poll
May 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's been more than a decade since I've added 2WNMF & XYZ. Bridge World Standard signs off with a jump to 3 of an unbid minor. I was curious to know if simple NMF players are adopting newer routes to a minor signoff.

Have you never been curious about methods you aren't using?

Did you vote on the poll re. Lost at the End of the Alphabet?

If you play 2WNMF what is your call holding
Kxxx Axx xx AQJx after partner's
1 - 1, 1N - 2
Do you break the relay to raise hearts? 2 or 3?
Let's assume you are not playing 14-16 1N.

Does your answer change if your shape is 4=3=1=5?
Does your answer change if your minors are reversed and you open 1: Kxxx Axx AQJx xx
May 4, 2014
Mike Cassel edited this comment May 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I appreciate the many contributions

Before we adopted XYZ we would raise or jump raise responder's major with 3 trump and a min/max weak NT rebid over responder's NMF.
Why should we not do the same after a 1 rebid followed by an XYZ 2 call? Axxx Kxx x !AQJTxx looks like a 3 reply to an XYZ 2 to me.

Some have suggested that the relay should only be broken with extras.
Others break the relay if they have no interest in playing 2

After a 1 opener and 1N rebid do NMF, not 2WNMF, players with a weak hand with long clubs get out via 2 - 2, 3 or is that an invite? Is responder's rebid of 3 drop dead, invitational, or forcing? It's been a decade since I've played regular NMF and no longer remember?

Maybe it's worth a poll
May 4, 2014
Mike Cassel edited this comment May 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you mean by breaking the relay to raise, I do not think any of opener's raises, 2 or 3, is forcing. I cannot imagine responder passing unless they've stretched to make the 2 call.
May 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the spreadsheet. I am still confused. It looks like the calculation is based on a single deal. What about a pair averaging 17.7 hcp over 27 boards? The probability and number of standard deviations from 0.

Am I missing something?
May 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
no psyche

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?n=s7qjah5d6qjc4569q&e=s458kth4ad9ac3kjt&s=s369h3kqjd35kc27a&w=s2h26789td2478tc8&b=1&d=n&v=-&a=1c1nx4dp4hxppp

On a diamond lead you can score 3, 2, and the black Aces for down 4 for a 5 imp win. Your counterparts bid and made 3N.
On a heart lead you lose a heart trick and lose 3 imps.
On the C!A lead you have to shift to a spade at trick 2.
May 4, 2014
Mike Cassel edited this comment May 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
west led a spade and declarer made 3 after a slight misdefense. The form of scoring was BAM and 4H was bid & made at the other table.
May 2, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff, the sequence in question does need to be addressed by new partnerships. If the immediate 2N shows the invitational hand with 4 clubs, then responder's sequence to sign off in clubs has to be a jump to 3 or a twist that an xyz 2 followed by 3 is a signoff. Both of these sequences are more problematic in my mind.

When 2N is a relay to 3 for signoff you can also get creative with further bids by responder: 5 of my major, 4 of your minor + low & high singletons with slam interest. And 4 of my major, 5 of your minor + low & high singletons with slam interest. The useful space aspect of the 2N relay is USEFUL!

In my XYZ partnerships we also change the meaning of responder jumps to the 3 level. In particular, responder's jump rebid of their major is not forcing but shows a “pure” invitational hand. Jumps to 3M after going through the 2 relay show 6 card suits with scattered highly invitational values. A rebid of the major at the two level can be a 5 or 6 card suit. If 6 the hand is less promising. I'm aware this is quite nonstandard, but I contend that there are far more sequences where level and strain are more important than declaring your single-suited slam interest. And it is a coup when you are playing at the 2 level when everyone else has relayed and jumped to 3 of their major opposite a an ill-fitting minimum opener.
May 1, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I prefer the only invitation to 2N to start with 2. If I had a weak 4card major and 6 diamonds I probably would try my luck in 2M with a 4-3 fit rather than take my chances in 3 if partner breaks the relay.
Isn't one reason for the break that opener either has good 3 card support or no interest in a diamond partial?
May 1, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
this is a question for pairs who play XYZ. A jump to the 3 level in a new suit is almost universally played as a strong jump shift. responder's rebid of 2, a relay to 2 starts a diamond signoff or an invitational hand.

I don't think this diamond suit and overall hand texture warrants a venture to the 3 level with no known fit.
May 1, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
for Barry
The permutations of more than 3 responses are daunting. Given that South did not pass North's 2 call I was interested in the community's views only on continuations. Had I been South holding KQ97 I would have rebid 3 over the 2 relay.

I'm seeking input on who breaks the 2 relay, why & when. Also , whether any call by South over North's 2 is forcing, particularly black suit rebids. I would assume South's 2N is definitely not forcing.

I think you meant 2 over 2 shows the 4=3=1=5. I'm sure some South's might choose a 1N rebid but that is not our style. How do you find a 4-4 spade fit if North has a weakish 4=5=?-?
May 1, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bid box looks strange. EW were silent
1 1, 1 2,2 2, 2 P was our auction
May 1, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
harsh… i believe that most critics of stolen bid doubles are referring to analogs for transfers, doubling 2 of a red suit, not doubling 2 which is almost universally played as stayman.

i think a case could be made that one of the worst agreements is the lack of agreement on proceeding after your stayman bid is doubled. If you can't determine if the partnership has a club stopper or who the declarer should be you are propelled into a guessing game.
April 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a formerly frequent forcing club player I loved it when the opps doubled a forcing club for majors. We then get 3 bids: pass, XX, & 1 to describe our hcp range. The double takes no space away from the auction.
The only time I will double a forcing club is with an opening hand that is exactly 4=4 in majors where I will have difficulty competing over opener's 1N rebid after a negative (1) reply.

Until I see a non-memory intensive followup to Namyats that allows responder to probe separately for side King(s) and shortness, and can ask about opener's trump solidity, etc at a safe level I will not play the convention. That people open Namyats with a side suit of xxx just asks for trouble. I recently read that someone uses 3N & 4C for Namyats. Maybe the 2under preempt, with it's second available asking step can be a winner.
April 21, 2014
Mike Cassel edited this comment April 21, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
i tell my students that given the choice between playing Smith or playing Lebensohl, not that i ever have to make the choice, i would choose Smith. It comes up far more often than when opps interfere over our NT openings.

It allows for more kinds of opening leads that may hit paydirt, and as long as the partnership takes care to plan their signals at trick 1, so they aren't hesitating re. their signal at T2, it's extremely useful.

One added benefit of Smith: you no longer need to give the opps info re. your opening leads vis a vis coded Ts and 9s including the J denies gift to the declarer. Your Smith will clarify if your lead is a top of nothing or top of an interior sequence
April 21, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top