Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Phil Markey
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 15 16 17 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Did you pre-announce what the slam depended on? Because, otherwise, it seems reeally doubtful that LHO, if he dropped the Q, did it for the reason you state.”

You don't know Andrew Mill. It may not of been certain that slam depended on the doubleton queen but he would of read the table, known Bill, and instantly calculated that dropping the queen from Qxx was the value play in any event.

I once saw him defend 7S with KJx in spades. Dummy tracked with Q10xxx spade and when declarer played a nervous ace out of hand and his partner followed he was quick to play the king. Easy to say that is just throwing away a trick but in real life this play got him a bunch more imps than it cost.
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An argument that is based on women needing a womens only event in order to avoid bad behaviour from men is offensive to me. It seems the same as advising women not to do things that might encourage bad behaviour from men, like wearing revealing clothes or staying out late at night.

Women shouldn't have to endure bad behaviour from men. They should not need protection from men. Creating a separate event for women based on your argument is entrenching a bias against women and if anything supporting the bad behaviour of men.
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Granting women a women’s game where they are free from the behaviors of some males, behaviors that are patently offensive to women, is simply an attempt to level the playing field, and eliminate issues and barriers men don’t deal with.”

That's right Ladies. Don't go out late at night either or men might rape you.

I think having a separate event for women only is entrenching the patriarchy. It is surely true that playing in a smaller talent pool will retard the improvement of the players in that pool.
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I double. 2C is asking to get beat up in some competitive auction and double protects my big upsides. In my experience overcalling 4 card suits will end badly a lot and is generally crap. I wouldn't bother with a dinosaur name convention to fix this “problem”.
Dec. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-ra0vksjrvx/

5D is hopeless with diamonds breaking 5/1 and hearts 3/1. 5H's is a doddle.
Dec. 28, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Frankly, I don't remember having made the 2♣ call without clubs in the last 20 years. Probably we have done once or twice and I just don't remember it.”

Can't recall it, but it (or an analogous sequence) has come up twice in your last couple of articles and both times you have advocated its use.

“It isn't part of our ”agreements“ in any sense”

If you are suggesting that you have never discussed these sequences with your regular partner I am calling you a liar. If you are suggesting that you haven't gone to some trouble to explain how your system caters for these types of bids in your recent articles you are definitely a liar. I think in every bridge sense you have an agreement.

“It is simply a tool which is available if the right hand comes along and we choose to using the tool, which of course involves the risk of partner holding that AKJ10x of clubs and taking us seriously with a raise to 3♣ before we have a chance to run from 2♣ doubled.”

Yeah this one is difficult for someone who likes a psych to hear. Sadly it doesn't matter that you took a risk with your crazy psyching when considering issues about disclosure. When your crazy psyching goes bad your opponents just collect that upside and when it goes good they get to be concerned about your ethics. That's just the way it is.
Dec. 24, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
KQJ
xx
xx
AKJ10xx

I hit the 10-12 1NT opening in the immediate seat and responders 2C bid comes back to me. I ask and get the explanation that it shows clubs and a higher. I have a convenient penalty double and do that. Responder redoubles and upon asking I am told that responder definitely doesn’t have clubs but some other thing.

My opponents have had auctions like this before but they don’t have to tell me about those because they could actually have anything so telling me what they usually have or had before would be misinformation.

Ohh well. Probably I should of figured out that my opponents have a special “maybe we will psyche our shortage and maybe we won’t so we don’t have to comply with usual disclosure” agreement ? It’s just bridge. It’s exactly like when my opponents open 1H with a 5 card suit and a side 6 card diamond suit. They don’t have to explain that to me so there is no reason to explain the arrangements in this position either.

It is not as if you have a computer screen that explains everything the opponents have agreed in front of you when you play bridge. It is just not fair that your opponents should have to explain “just bridge” stuff as well as things that they do have to disclose.
Dec. 23, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is that to say “Partner is trying to mess with you here and if I tell you what he had the other 8 times he has done it then it would spoil the surprise later” ?

Maybe it is that you are saying that you have a special system arrangement that your opponents will be messed with in this auction and that precludes you from being able to tell them how they are being messed with ?
Dec. 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The situation you pose is a special case, where you will not be using that data. To provide it, when partner could genuinely have anything, is especially dangerous.”

This auction is “special”, and the, “your not using this data exception”.

This is persuasive stuff Bill.
Dec. 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I don't think you have to tell them that a hand where partner wants to avoid a double is more likely than one where partner would welcome a double. The relative probability of various hand types is something opponents will have to figure out for themselves.”

What is the “relative probability” of 8 times partner has horrid junk versus no times partner has something else ?

“But most likely you haven't noticed anything definite if it is only 7-8 times.”

When I get accused of fielding a psych that will be my go to excuse from now on. “I just didn't notice anything definite those 8 other times partner psyched in this position.”
Dec. 5, 2019
Phil Markey edited this comment Dec. 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Suppose you go ‘full disclosure’ with the last option, the opponents double 2♠, and it makes because partner was operating with good spades.

How should/would your opponents react? They may be rather upset, to put it mildly, with your answer.”

You know that this is irrelevant to the correct answer. Imagine the crazy world if it was relevant.

The rest of your reply is mostly lies too Bill because I saw you plenty of times telling me what partners history was and expecting the same from your opponents.
Dec. 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You were not “down 50 odd” ! You and some other weird looking Fanta Pants kid together with other wayward youngsters from the bad lands of New Zealand had not read the script and were busy scaring the crap out of the clearly better Australian team with all your new fangled psyching and stuff.

It says something about the issue that it arises because the person who had the hand thought to say that maybe this is a good auction because the opponents will think you want to get doubled in 2S.

I hear players say “Psyching is legal” and all I see is people who think psyching is not really legal. It's the definition of “the bridge player doth protest too much”. Makes no more sense to say “not psyching is legal” than it does to say “psyching is legal”.

I think that's the root cause of this crazy blind spot that so many good players have.
Dec. 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“How do you respond to your opponents questions ?”

Not

“How would you alert these bids ?”
Dec. 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am going to decide if we make game now because that is where the big $$ is. 4C provides good opportunity to look stupid but I like pass. 3S sucks.
Dec. 4, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Any attempt by the opening 1NT bidder to tell the opponents what his partner has for the slow sequence to 2♠ would not be accurate. Partner might have anything. If the 1NT bidder makes some description that would give the opponents MI, since that is not the agreement. That only agreement is that when responder bids 2♠, opener shuts up.”

You have that argument in common with all the good players I have had cause to raise this issue with.

Let's say that an imaginary player has been in a serious partnership for 5+ years and he and his partner routinely practice their system, have detailed system notes, and an extensive playing history. They have the agreement you mention regarding this sequence and the precise sequence, or an analagous sequence, has come up 10 times in the past playing experience of this partnership and every time it has come up our imaginary player has the hand that wants to see if the opponents fail to double him in some contract because our imaginary player wants to “dodge a bullet”. Our imaginary player has never had some hand like the one I posed in this thread initially.

If I was this imaginary player and my partner in response to questions about this sequence said what I understand you to propose;

“Our agreement is that I have no role to play in this sequence so partner could have anything for this bid.”

I would anxiously correct that explanation as soon as I was able to. Partner has described the system but he has failed to describe the partnership experience which I think my opponents are entitled to.

This comes up for me because I psyche a bit and people go ballistic with the notion that us psyche's should be scrupulous about advising opponents about our habits, rather than merely our agreements, and I agree with them. Maybe you don't ?
Dec. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Absolutely part of your disclosure should be to say that Partner is in control in as much as the 1NT overcaller is not going to compete but that doesn't by itself fix the problem.

What do you say as the 1NT overcaller when the proposed sequence happens and you are asked “What does he show for this sequence ?”, or more pointedly “Does he bid this way with 6 decent spades ?”. If your answer to those questions is along the lines of “I don't know, given the situation he could have anything”, when you are a serious long term partnership, a lot of players are going to get rightly upset.

If you are only describing the theory and not the lived practice it should be common ground that you are not complying with your obligations.
Dec. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The author proposed a sequence something like;

1H 1NT X 2C
P P X 2D
X P P 2S

saying this is a good plan and then said “Also, this sort of sequence sounds suspicious, as if you are trying to get them into a doubling rhythm. If they think that, they may fail to make a marginal and successful double.”

The author did at least imply he might bid 2C with a hand like the one I give, hence my question.

It is understandable that responder in this sequence (1H-1NT-X-?) has a license as pointed out in the article. The chicanery suggested in the article is not something I think you could fairly engage in more than once before you have an obligation to tell your opponents about it. If you never engage in the same chicanery with the hand I give it is not chicanery to start with 2C on the actual hand because everyone ought to know what you have.

In short, you can't pretend to bluff in bridge if you never actually bluff. I think a lot of good players see that a bid could be a bluff and want that upside without appreciating that they are not entitled to it unless they commonly bluff. It's probably the only time I agree with the otherwise short sighted people who say bridge is not a poker game.
Dec. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
KJ10985
6
983
872

Is presumably a routine 2C bid ?

I think once you run from 2 clubs doubled in the proposed sequence you invite more doubling. In any event the disclosure obligations in the sequence you suggest are fraught.

Running from 1NT smacked seems to promote at best awkward and at worst illegal running. I bother to keep track of my regular expert opponents. Too many times I have seen a run to 2 clubs redoubled for rescue and later been told this is “just bridge”. Maybe it is “just bridge” but it isn't “just bridge” the second time.
Dec. 1, 2019
Phil Markey edited this comment Dec. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would open the West hand. If you forced me to play a strong 1NT base I would open the North cards 1NT. I would redouble with the North cards after the double. I would probably double 2H with the South cards. I would never deliberately compete for a part-score in NT's. Put another way, I like South's 1NT response to a 1D opening. I probably make 2NT.

I think the morale to this hand is that silly pesky is still pesky and nearly everyone at this table should be more pesky.
Dec. 1, 2019
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 15 16 17 18
.

Bottom Home Top