Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Peg Kaplan
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 299 300 301 302
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Certainly reasonable for #4, David.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
#2 & #3 are fine for me. #4 I think is too strong for only 2. Perhaps 3 would be best here (interpreting it as even better than 2 as I do think that shows a good hand and is forcing).
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nor would I! Just curious….
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What do I know?! For me, the one choice it is NOT - and - that is #1 - currently the most popular answer.

For me, doubling then pulling 1NT to 2 shows extras. I see no extras in #1. (And yes; I would think it is forcing.)
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BTW, everyone - Richard's team won this 2 week event in our club. (WD, Richard & Co.!)

So - he is only asking for informational purposes. Could not improve upon his overall score! (Alas, I, the bridesmaid, could….)
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, what would 4 mean sysytemically for your partnership?
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Brad - I remember it this way. “I don't want to go for 200 against a part score. I don't want to go for 500 (or 800) against their game!”
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You mean, before the “talkies,” - right, Don? :D ;)
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David - people have all kinds of agreements for raises here. I, for instance, play that 2NT is a limit (good 9 to 11 hcp roughly), and 2 is 4+ trump support with great 7 to 10 flat; 2 is specifically 3 with the same range as 2 - 2 of partner's suit is junky but not preemptive and 3 is preemptive. But - lots of different agreements how to handle showing what sort of raise you have.

And, of course, one man's “x” range is not the same as every other man's “x” range!
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff. I've known you for a long time. I know you are a nice guy and a reasonable player. But - I must admit that I also think you can be stubborn (as can we all on occasion) - but more stubborn, so it seems, than the average bear. So, in another attempt to try to convince you that when 357 (as of the moment when I am writing this) think that there is no need to call a director, and when a high percentage of these 357 players think you are wrong on many points - then perhaps you should wonder if there is some chance they are correct - and - you were not.

First, more than a few of us (including yours truly) do have a different standard for calling a director at a club game versus tournament play. If you wanted to know what they would do under such circumstances, then perhaps it would have been superior to frame your problem that way originally. I would guess by now you do know that many of us do have “different standards” for a club game rather than a tournament.

But - back to your original points. Let's take them one by one:

“I had heard North make a bid that was described by South as a constructive raise with four trump. That is a limited bid.”

Not sure exactly what this means. Yes, a constructive bid is a “limited bid” - so is a simple raise and a limit raise. All “limit” a hand to a certain degree, with slightly different valuations depending upon both partnership agreement and personal judgment.

“I had heard South choose not to bid game opposite the limited North hand.”

Not bidding game is one thing. But - as I mentioned previously, no one forced south to bid again over an intervening call. So, while you may think that this some how “bars” north from making a call, I and many others do not. In my mind, south does not have a rock bottom, 3rd chair opener when he bids 3. So, whether you describe this as “something extra” or “a full opener” or however you wish to describe it, it's more than many hands that many of us who open light in 3rd chair might have.

“Then I heard North overrule South’s opinion by bidding game. That is unusual, but, as others have pointed out, not impossible if there was some reason that caused North to re-evaluate the North hand.”

“Overrule?” Are you saying that north is not allowed to LEGALLY take advantage of the auction itself? North heard his passed hand LHO bid the suit in which he has a stiff. He heard his partner bid again when he did not have to do so. He heard the doubler fail to make another call. So again - I and a great many others here think that, based upon his legally available data, bidding game is a reasonable choice.

All in all, including the additional statements in your most recent post, it still seems that you are accusing your opponents either of not giving you an accurate description of their agreements, or taking advantage of an erroneous explanation - or of being inept in evaluating. Thus, in one way, shape or form, you are indeed either insulting or accusing your opponents of something bad.

Perhaps the tone in their voice when they responded to your first question was not so much haughtiness, but a not unreasonable bit of offense that you would insinuate that they did something wrong like this. PERHAPS if you had phrased your original question a bit differently, given your beliefs, like this: “I'm sorry, but did I misunderstand something? I thought that you said the hand was only a constructive raise - but - this looks like a limit raise. Could you explain?” then your opponent might have been a bit more gentle.

As stated much earlier, in my mind, this is pretty much just what a constructive raise should look like. I wouldn't think of making a limit raise bid - unless I was attempting to fake out my opponents.

Now - you are entitled to your view that it's a limit raise. But again - if so many disagree with you, and disagree about the question you asked, and are sympathetic to the opponents' and what they said .. Then maybe the right response is to be more introspective and wonder why your judgement differs so much from most everyone else.

I myself sometimes have beliefs with which few agree. Sometimes, I hold them firm. Yet, if I am in a tiny minority, I always ponder why so many do view it differently than I do … and sometimes, I realize that they are correct and I am not.

Possibly, that is the case here?
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ben, as you know with your perfect memory, I personally do play intermediate jump overcalls - but - only vul against not. I know some who play them vul, period …. but am not familiar with those who always play them. (Do you play them at all vulnerabilities?)

That being said - I actually think this may be a bit good for “only” intermediate…. That 7th heart is a killer!
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Timo - I like (OK; “like” is a stretch, but…) bidding 1NT because it shows values, which I have. And because bidding at a low level does NOT show values and … which 3 card suit should I use for a jump? I sure hate having to play my 3-3 fits!
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You need a lot of tricks to beat 'em at the 1 level. I go for taking 7 (at least) on offense rather than defense. Uncle Edgar and all that!
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assume one must, Paul - and then hope partner “gets it right!”
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't want to bid 4 because I think this hand is too strong for that.

My second choice would be to double and then bid hearts…… but - afraid if I try that route, I might have to bid at the 5 level.

Question: are the 4 bidders going to double if one of their opponents bids again? Curious; thanks.
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, I wouldn't like that but I'd take my chances with 5. Don't need too much from partner to bring that home.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No one forced his partner to bid 3 if he had a dog….
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would think that 2NT was 18-19 with a spade card.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff, I am sure that you meant well, but - I can imagine also being irritated had someone asked me this question. It sure looks like a constructive raise to me, so asking the question in my mind either implies that you are challenging North's bidding judgement - OR that you are implying he might be a little bit unethical. (I say the latter, because IF North's partner had indeed not properly described his partner's bid, then North should say so when the auction is completed and prior to your partner leading.)

So, either way, it seems not unreasonable to assume that your statement implies poor judgement OR poor ethics by this pair. Might I be a little miffed then at such a question? Yes, I might.

Truly, I think that a hand really has to be “out there” to ask such a question. Give North another king for an “x”, perhaps such a question would be reasonable.

But since some might think that the hand is closer to a simple raise than it is at the other spectrum to a limit raise, I would vote that your question should not have been made.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know if I bid 2, the auction would go all pass. And partner would put down: Qxx, xxxxx, 109, KQx.

Bad stuff can happen if I double (PLEASE don't pass, partner!) But at least I wouldn't have to face the above scenario!
Jan. 18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 299 300 301 302
.

Bottom Home Top