Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Randy Thompson
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I usually play out a hopeless hand because there is no limit to the ways that defenders can give me a trick, but I'd never play the hand slowly. It would be unethical (IMO) for a normally-fast player to play a hopeless hand slowly, but if you stay with your usual pace (or in the case of snails, perhaps a bit faster), then playing out a hand is not unethical. We have all looked at dummy playing a 1 contract that has zero play for 7 tricks and wound up +170 for reasons we could never even imagine, much less predict.

In the first round of the Spingold, a hall of fame player once quickly claimed down one in a grand where my partner and I would have had to discard very carefully to beat it! Say what? We had been defending well against him in that match thus far, but he didn't give us a chance to give him the contract and we were certainly capable of that. IMO, everyone is capable of that, so I'd say play 'em out without apology, Peg.
Dec. 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wow is that ever an impressive reason to claim – I might Later revoke!!!!!!!!
Dec. 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Never claim. This forum proves it over and over and over and over and over and … you get the picture, just never claim.
Dec. 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AJT86 is worth a lot more than 5 points and I would upgrade even playing 15-17 with a partner who doesn't like upgrades and who will disapprove vocally if it doesn't work. Make it AJ643 and I would not upgrade the hand other than with a partner who would expect an upgrade with any decent 5-card suit. Bridgetta dealt you good spot cards in all four suits, trip aces and a good 5-card suit – surely she meant for you to add a point for SOMEthing. It would be an affront to the goddess of dealing to call this 14!
Dec. 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Back in the 1970's a group of young players around Washington, D.C. (known as “the Boys”) used to play no-peek now and then in a club game. Bidding “methods”: Must pass in first 3 seats and in 4th seat, must open 1. Responder bids suits up the line and if no opp had acted after their auction of 1-1, 1-1, they bid 3N. Highly illegal, but then so was a lot of what they inhaled or ingested prior to the game.
Dec. 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To quote a stock line of a Washington Post humor/sports columnist, “Pay the man, Shirley!”
Dec. 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, but I would open 4 with that for tactical reasons. The notion that someone can be bluffed out of noticing all those non-hearts and HCPs in their hands and passing over 2 is just gibberish. I want to make them find THEIR fit at a much higher level.
Dec. 4, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure about applicable regulations across the pond, but we describe our 2 opener as “9+ tricks with a major OR 10+ tricks with a minor OR 22+ HCP.” We usually open Two-suiters 1X, although Kokish lets us open 2 with hearts and another suit, but even those will normally fit into the 9+ playing trick category. When the opponents open 2, you should be MORE willing to mix into the bidding, not LESS willing; their game bonus will cover a lot of your potential minuses. Even red vs white here, South should bid 2. Does that mean they will find the 7-level save at unfavorable? No. But, I wouldn't reward anyone who passed the South hand with any freebie imps, regardless of regulations or vulnerability.
Dec. 4, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
SB should be ashamed of himself/herself and should be shunned by other players.
Dec. 4, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So North should alert 3 and explain it as a “Wonder Bid?” (He either has short spades or long spades – and now I'm telling you – and partner – that I don't know which, so that the REAL ethical issue comes when West doubles and the issue is whether South is required to go down with the ship in 3N doubled, even when sure that 6m would be a better contract? Guess he would, as he passed 3N in this auction. Hard to imagine why one is required to alert a bid where there is obviously zero partnership understanding. So now, we not only must alert our agreements but our non-discussed non-agreements? When did bridge become a game of lawyering rather than play? If 5 spade tricks weren't enough for West to double 3 “natural” why would they be enough to double it when short? IMO, South acted absolutely correctly and the issue of whether there was an “agreement” can be resolved by applying what real lawyers would say was a matter of “res ipsa loquitur.”
Dec. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Inconceivable wrong!
Dec. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing matchpoints, frequency is a big deal. Some of the most difficult bidding problems ever come when the opponents open a weak 2 bid. If you are dealt 4-2 or 2-4 in the majors and opening values or better, you will be hating whatever you do. 18-19 flat may really help – when it comes up. A quick check shows that 18-19 HCP are dealt to one hand 2.65% of the time. Then that is shaved down by requiring that it be flat! If you want a great chance to not use your 2 opening at all in 248 deals, play that it shows 18-19 flat! Only in that universe of under 1% do you reach the analysis of whether the opening bid helped you on those rare occurrences when you held 18-19 flat early enough in the auction to not be deciding what to do over THEIR preempt on that hand. Of course, the negative inference of not opening 2 showing 18-19 flat is also of some benefit.

Unless you build too many requirements into your weak two's, a 2 bid can come up maybe 5-10 times as often and it can induce a lot of mistakes by opponents.

Maybe you could vary your choice with seat and vulnerability. Odd seats nonvul (prime preempting conditions) weak two; other seats and vulnerabilities 18-19 flat.
Nov. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Penalty, but that said, this definition would come up once every three leap years.
Nov. 28, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
West (barely) has a GF hand and if that means he must bid 2N in their methods, that's fine. East has good trumps and one suit that isn't wide open, so passing 3 isn't crazy, but it's leaning forward for sure. How either of them failed to double 4 is beyond me. Both seem have been bidding partner's imaginary “extras” instead of what was under their nose. Three outside aces and a bare minimum for a game force with terrible hearts looks as close to an automatic double of 4 as you may ever get dealt. With 2 dead spades, 2 dead diamonds, no aces, bare minimum high card points and a club control that is King-super-empty, East has about as automatic a double as you will likely get dealt. Had to go with “both” on this one.
Nov. 27, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I answered 2 based on my preferred style. I only play it with one partner, however. Sometimes you get the bear; sometimes the bear gets you. But, playing this style along with opening all 11's and good 10's means that if you pass nonvul in first seat, it is a LOUD pass.
Nov. 24, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Probably not now that you posted this post!
Nov. 24, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
NT range can impact this – P-(P)-2N-(P), 3N-all pass if your range is 19-20 or 19-21. The Random Monkey is 11-2 to let 3N make on that blind auction. If East opens 1 and West bids 2N as a passed hand, North might find a heart lead against 3N.
Nov. 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This issue cost my partner and I a KO match (where we had led by 27 after 3/4). We came up with a firm rule: In competition, a game bid at your first turn to bid is ALWAYS to play. In comp, you have to able to bid you super long suits immediately, while they can still obstruct the opponents. Similarly, if you play fit-showing jumps (or splinters), in comp, those have to end at 4 (for the same reason). The only exception would be a jump in the opponents' suit. I don't see any reason that you have to play this way in a constructive auction, where you could easily bid your suit first then bid game in it.
Nov. 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After 1N-2T, 2M-3m, ?? I prefer to play the 3m as invite+ and opener's bids as:

4M…Max with fit for M; denies longer/better fit for m
3OM…Max with fit for m; denies a fit for M
Cheapest om…Max w fit for M and longer/better fit for m (M for game, m for slam)
4m…min with fit for m, denies a fit for M
3N…Solid Max with possible double stops in both unbid suits
3M…default bid – cannot make any of the forgoing bids; doesn't guarantee 3 of M

What is a max with a fit for m depends on degree of fit – with 4 card support for m, it takes top of range; with 5 card fit, it takes middle of range; min is less than those.
Nov. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Best shot at a plus score for our side is the opponents declaring 1N vul on the lead of the Q. Why opt for a shot at +90 in a minor when it likely won't make unless we are cold for +100 defending. And, there is always the chance of +200 defending. I don't see this as “wimpy” but just “normal.” :)
Nov. 18, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top