Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Randy Thompson
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I bid 6 for the same reasons others bid it. If playing that 5 was an asking bid, then I would only be using that bid to try for grands. Painting a bullseye on your butt and walking along a rifle range isn't wise – neither is telling the opponents what to lead against slams or 5 level games.
Aug. 17, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I bid 4 here and even if wrong-sided, making a game is better than whatever passing 3 might fetch. If partner has 0-3 spades, 6 hearts, and 1-3 diamonds, then he should have some clubs – I'd say normally he will have 3 clubs, with 2 being his second most likely number and 1 and 4 being remote possibilities. If partner persists with 4 over 4 he won't be unhappy with this hand (or else maybe he shouldn't have bid 3).
Aug. 17, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My partner couldn't hold 3-4-3-3 shape, as he would have bid 2 (cheapest non-exciting suit). But, he certainly could hold xxxx xxx xxx xxx and should hold a maximum of 4 HCP. It isn't possible to find out if partner has Jxxxx and a doubleton heart. We have to just guess here. At IMPs, I'd likely bid 2 and set forth on a search for a doomed game, but at match points I think it's wrong to guess anything that risks our plus score. Pass could work. 1N could work. 2 could work. 2 might work if you are willing to pass 2 by partner. If it's even remotely possible that partner could be 3-4-3-3 then I'd bid 1N and otherwise, I'd pass and double their next bid. (I don't do well at match points. :) )
Aug. 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Someone mentioned a weakness of 2 is that it permits a lead-directing double. For those who are interested in surviving such doubles, I have devised a way to cope (no doubt invented by others who use 2 this way). The general rule is “the more bidding room you consume, the more you have” (that partner might care about). Partner is presumed to care about one or more of Size, Spade stopper(s) and Clubs.

1) Pass…All minimum hands
2) Redbl…Max hand, but no spade stopper
3) 2N…Max hand, spade stopper(s) but <4 clubs
4) 3…Max hand, spade stopper(s)and 4+ clubs.

3) and 4) are easy –partner signs off in 3C if weak and bids 3N or whatever he had planned to rebid (above 3)if invitational or strong. (Number 3 came up last night on BBO!)

1) Using Pass to show the min hand leaves us the most room to find our best strain if all partner was doing was inviting game in no trump.
REDOUBLE BY RESPONDER initiates a scramble and identifies a “busted invite.” Opener can then bid 2N with a spade stopper and no 5-card minor or he can bid 3m (his cheapest four+ suit, with 3 usually showing 5). After redoubling, responder can bid 3 to play if he has 5 diamonds.
2N BY RESPONDER is to play, promises a spade stopper and denies a 5 card minor (having already denied a 4-card major). Opener can bid 3m over 2N with a 5-card suit.
3 BY RESPONDER is to play and may be EITHER a busted invite with 5+ clubs OR a weak hand with 6+ clubs that was always on its way to 3.
3X BY RESPONDER is GF with club anchor suit and whatever 3X would have shown if no double.

2) Using Redbl to show the max hand with no spade stopper leaves room for scrambles when spades are open. Over that redouble, Responder bids:
2N….busted invite, no 5 card club suit (can't want to play 2N as if he was inviting and has spades stopped, he would bid 3N). This tends to be 4-4 or 4-3 or 3-4 in the minors OR 5 diamonds (will correct 3 to 3. Can't bid 3 immediately w/o it showing what it would have shown w/o the double.
3N….To play (with spade stopper(s).
3…To play with EITHER a busted invite and 5 clubs OR a weak hand with 6+ clubs.
3/3…mean whatever they would have meant w/o the double of 2.
3…Strong hand with clubs, GF, should have shortness in spades.
4….Strong hand with clubs, invites 5 if opener has good controls

One other point about the lead directing double is that we tend to avoid using 2 with soft spade values – we just bid 3N “like a man” or pass 1N “like a mouse,” with form of the game and vulnerability used in this decision (3N vul at imps and pass in most other situations). Last night, when I bid 2 (and it was doubled), I had xxx so the lead wasn't going to sink our ship if partner could stop spades (he had AJx). With something like Qxx, I'd forego inviting and just bid game or pass. This has been working out pretty well.

We adopted the no-invite-if-they-could-profit-from-a-double approach after reading a District 6 website article by Steve Robinson where he polled top experts about inviting game over 1N. There was a very large contingent of world-level players who just would NOT invite if they had to go through Stayman, etc. that helped the defense, rather than just being able to bid 2N invitational. BTW, those Robinson polls and articles are purest gold for serious bridge players. Steve picks the brains of a LOT of top level players so that you get not only what they would do in common situations, but why they would do it and how they would make many critical decisions and you are exposed to differing opinions with reasons given for the differences that let you pick your own poison where there is a split.
Aug. 12, 2014
Randy Thompson edited this comment Aug. 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can accept other partner flaws, but I just won't play with anyone who can't defend. If we beat almost all of the opponents' unmakeable contracts, we'll do fine. To defend well, you pretty much have to be a decent bidder and declarer or you won't know what's going on. I like to give “freeform” signals, where the signal given is the one you think partner should expect to get, given the dummy, the bidding and the defense and declarer play up to this point. Obviously, this only works in an established partnership and only works if you and partner share a vision of what defense is all about.
Aug. 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We use redouble and all bids of 1 of a suit as transfers to the next highest strain. Transferring to 1N shows 6-8 OR 12+ GF values. A bid of 1N shows 9-11 and is natural. A transfer to 1N followed by any bid other than pass shows the strong GF hand. So, this takes the place of the values-showing redouble. If partner's suit was a major, then we play that a bid of the suit below M is a transfer to 2M with a 3-card raise (limit+). We will probably eventually use other bids of 2X in some way, but for now they just show a long suit and a fear the double might be left in.

Transferring to 1N with 6-8 appeals to us more than it might to some, as our 1m openers, if flat, will have 15-19 HCP.
Aug. 4, 2014
Randy Thompson edited this comment Aug. 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing K-S, where opener cannot have a weak no trump, but has length in his minor if distributional, these nasty auctions are a bit easier to handle using transfers. This lets us bid the “negative free bid” hands and all invite+ hands (where the invite is of a Big No Trump range, so 8+ HCP is normal). When I designed the methods, I called this “ToTom” (Transfers over Two of the other minor) in our system outline. I thought about this in a 2/1 context and concluded that it wouldn't really work all that well and definitely wasn't worth the effort to learn a whole new structure. You have to work out the details, especially for when their advancer bids, so this is a lot of work. If your flat hands could be either 12-14 or 18-19, good luck!

With the 4-1-4-4 pattern you mention (and 8+ HCP), responder transfers to 2 (opener super accepts with all 4-card fits – to 3 with 15-16 in support of spades, to 4 with 17-18 in support of spades and to a jump-cuebid with 19+ in support) and then rebids 3 with 8-11 or cue bids 3 with more. To accommodate the negative free bid possibilities (4+ HCP and 6+ suit), opener accepts the transfers on almost all hands with less than 18 HCP (he must bid something else with 18+).
Aug. 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you.
Aug. 2, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Will BBO cover the pre-finals rounds? If so, then we can still check out their “movies” of matches played while we slept. Then we can just check the WBF website for finals results and wait for the Bridge World write-up of the finals. Not optimal, but I'm just not going to be downloading any software or paying any fees just for one match played while I'm sleeping.

The problem with even watching on BBO is the incredibly slow pace of play. I tend to watch more when I can hop among several tables, looking for pairs who don't go into extended trances at every turn. Short attention span? Ubetcha. Slow play (which sadly is part of the game) and complicated, artificial bidding systems (of which I wholeheartedly approve) are the reasons there will NEVER be a broad market for watching world level bridge matches. Any business model that depends on having lots of people pay to watch something where nothing at all happens for 5-10 minutes at a time isn't one in which I would want to invest.

BBO's chumming model that expands the market for what they do sell by giving away what would be hard to sell makes sense to me.

Aug. 2, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My pass just says "YOU pick our strain, as I don't have a clear preference. It's possible that I could have something like 4-4-4-1 (and not enough to cuebid 2) and will correct diamonds to hearts.
Aug. 2, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So much for watching WBF events. Too bad they'll go from thousands of viewers to dozens.
Aug. 2, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With no fit, pretty clear that it's best to go low here. Playing K-S, where 2 is forcing and 2 by partner is almost-automatic, you could then show this shape and reverse strength by rebidding 2 over 2. This hand is just barely worth that treatment, but in K-S you could also show 15-17 with a 1N rebid (probably my choice here). That structure causes its own problems on other hands, but it helps on hands like this one, where a non-forcing 2 rebid that might have the same shape and 11 HCP could cost us a game bonus.
July 31, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don't worry about them making 2 whether doubled or redoubled. If they can make 8+ tricks playing in a suit that splits like this? They have at LEAST a game their way. If their methods over double relate to suitability for playing in OUR suit, so that playing redoubled diamond contracts is possible? I want to get in there as often as possible, as these folks aren't capable of taking advantage of the extra bidding room that a double gives them except on the 1% of hands where playing diamond contracts is right their way.
July 30, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed. Vs weak no trumps, our doubles of Stayman and Jacoby show cards (usually 15+ HCP).
July 30, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(IMO) all this hair-splitting and diction-based analysis just misses the bridge point – does the pass say “let's play 1Dxx or does it say ”You pick our strain.“ Pretty clear that it said ”you pick.“ I think the explanation should be very simple – ”she was NOT suggesting playing 1Dxx; she was asking me to bid my longest/best suit." Period. Next board. Whatever hand she has for choosing to throw the decision back to the doubler has NOTHING to do with absolute length in any major; she is just saying the doubler is better placed than she to make that choice. Might be 6-6 in the majors, with every intent of pulling 2 to 2/3/4. Might be 1-1-1 in the unbids and wishing the pass showed a desire to play diamonds (with the intent to pull to 2). Phrasing it in terms of absolute major suit length was unfortunate, but (IMO) not worthy of a procedural penalty.

Easy to say all this now with time to reflect. Harder at the table and nary a soul has pointed out that (I think) English is NOT Irina's first language (although I know from playing against her a few times that her English is excellent). Defending this ruling is amazing – despite the highest character and qualifications of the members of the committee, all of whom I respect, and at least one of whom I can call a friend (which is more than I can say about any affected participant). Good, qualified people don't always get it right. The dissenting opinion was right on target (IMO).
July 29, 2014
Randy Thompson edited this comment July 29, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This ruling sends an unfortunate message: “Volunteer NOTHING unless asked.”

In this situation, the world divides into those whose pass says they want to play 1XX and those whose pass says they want doubler to pick the runout suit. The opponents are entitled to know which approach this partnership takes – if they ask. They aren't entitled to anything else. The wording of a volunteered explanation that wasn't even required and that actually DID reflect partnership experience shouldn't be the stuff of penalties that decide an event.
July 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After reading the write-up in the Bulletin, I'd have to say that this well-intentioned committee of good people and excellent bridge players erred. This “win” will now forever have an asterisk (meaning “not really”). Congrats to the Baker team for winning the event and to the Wang team for winning the appeal.
July 27, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4N isn't Blackwood, that much is for sure. Don't think we can ever make an intelligent decision about a grand – each of us has made a non-forcing bid in NT at this point and neither will view ANY bid as a try for a grand. Better be prepared to play in your next bid and for me that's gotta be 6N.
July 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If partner made a passable 4N, of COURSE we give on grands! Aces? Only been playing a little over 40 years and so far no 6N off two aces –but some day it will surely happen, and we'll pay up with a bad board and not worry about it for 40 more years.

When accepting, if we might prefer a suit slam to 6N, we bid 4-card suits (cheapest decent suit) at 5 level and 5-card suits at the 6 level. Mostly our 4-card suit suggestions would be minors, as pard eschewed Stayman and seeking out 4-3 fits for slam isn't part of my approach. 5-card suits could be any suit. We also play 5N as non-forcing back-atcha invite– 4-3-3-3 max that if opposite another 4-3-3-3 hand could easily not be enough. I suppose this stuff is less useful at matchpoints.
July 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would open 1 playing any system (and would actually have my bid in my Precision partnership). In my non-Precision partnerships, an opening bid is “expected” to have 12 HCP, 2+Quick Tricks and no more than 7 Losing tricks. 13 HCP forgives all other flaws and you have to bid something. Otherwise you can't flunk more than one requirement. This hand has all the defense expected of an opener, with two aces. Its 6 Losing Tricks has “extras” for offense (if partner has a fit for one of our suits). If partner insists on his own suit, then at least we have two tricks for him. The only problem could be if partner insists on 3N with a misfit. With even a partial fit for one of my suits, it could be a source of tricks and the side ace an entry to them. I must say that being vulnerable at match points could be a reason to pass this hand, but with low ranking suits, will you ever get to show them later and can pard ever read you for this much offense or defense? There's more than one way to get a bad board and passing this hand could wind up being one of them.
July 16, 2014
Randy Thompson edited this comment July 16, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top