Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Robert Stevens
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 53 54 55 56
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did not one world class player once, when asked how to play a hand at pais or board-a-match, say: 'For all the tricks you can take"? Tony Forrester is following the dictum – not that he needed the advice.

Being of a pessimistic turn of mind, I tend to have trouble just throwing caution to the wind in an effort to make all thirteen tricks.
Dec. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed. But I really doubt, certainly at matchpoints, that many would be willing to pass holding six decent s. Of course, they should with marginal values. But they don't.
Dec. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, not necessarily: opener may be guaranteeing four s (if playing Flannery?) with a decent chance of playing an 8 card fit. But I am entirely in resonance with your posting. I think takeout is just too small a target. Playing that it shows a good hand, willing to defend;
that I can accept.
Dec. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Double of 2 would be strength, takeout oriented”. You were unable to do that, and yet now can essay four level? I suppose it is possible, but I am having a difficult time coming up with a hand consistent with the opponents bidding. I suppose a 1534 shape is possible, but I certainly hope the opponents don't draw that conclusion also.
Dec. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South may have an uncommon hand type, but having to bid 1N on it is an abomination.
Dec. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North might not have had a slam drive, but these comments to the effect that North had only a working 13 count are exaggerated. North had a five card, good, suit. That already is significant extras.
Dec. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess Patrick is leading as the only suit that “is bridge”. I am sure that his partner's will find the lead directing double of on Q+smaller.
Dec. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BTW I am sure the Earl, wherever his immortal parts now reside, will be glad that his name is still so intimately associated with cards.
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well then let's call the other “unnatural”. Or, less facetiously, “takeout”. Yeh?
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sandwich is a most descriptive word. If you use it in the manner asserted by David Stevenson then what would you call a 16-18 point notrump bid made with an opening bid to your left and a response to your right?
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Really? Well that is news to me. Sandwich to me means between two entities. I am not contesting your assertion, but it does not seem like a good choice of word if intended to convey something other than position.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you misunderstand.
Nowhere did the OP actually state that the 1N bid was not a balanced strong notrump hand.
Or do you think that is alertable?
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well then, we should call the director when trumps are placed on the right?
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting treatment. It seems a bit like “Manfield” over a takeout double: redouble showing immediate interest in penalties; pass then double the featureless hand with decent point count. It does seem vulnerable to the “psychic raise”
Nov. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Danny. I don't know. Yes it is easy for me to draw attention to this, but far harder to come up with an answer. All that you say is correct. But there is a crying need for being able to discover such information. I hope others can weigh in.
Nov. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed. This is the “I just cannot bear to let the opponents play the hand” approach to bridge. I have no hand and no shape, but hey, let's buy it at the three level with a combined 17 count and seven trumps.
Nov. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ACBL have some many rules about alerting, full disclosure … it just goes on and on.
But these rules only address bids that are made, never bids that might be made. And convention cards are inadequate to provide necessary answers.

The bidding has gone as shown in the OP up to my second bid, and I hold:
Jxxx x Q10xx Qxxx. We are about to take a fall in 1x – not good. But hey, no problem: I can just bid 2 against all these anything-but-penalty people. But how do I detect whether by opps are in this cozy fraternity? I can hardly ask my lho: “if I raise what will your partner's double mean”?

I care little whether the opps have to alert that 1N is 10-12; that their 2 bid is Capelleti; that their 2N bid is good/bad…. What I want to know is: what will the, as yet unmade, double show. So that I can take advantage of it. Yet for all the disclosures and fine ACBL print, there is just no way to winkle this information out of the opps clamshell.
Nov. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This makes my head ache. You open x Kxx KJxxx KQxx, or some other pile as so many seem to. LHO overcalls 1, p goes quietly, and RHO bids 2. According to Nigel this hand will double for takeout. In that universe, I guess, you are quite sanguine about playing the 3 level with a combined 19 count and a seven card fit.

And, you know, he may be right. Because half the universe, in the form of the opps, are also playing that nobody can double for penalties either. When asked, The bidders will describe their second round doubles with some twoddle like “cards”, “do something sensible” … blah blah. Anything in fact except: you have just bid my partner's five card second suit and now you are now going to pay.
Nov. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am between Steve and Marty. The Q would be better in (and would even give 6 some play (4x would be down a bundle,though). So, the Q is not pulling full weight. But to suggest that the hand is no better than AKxxx Kxxx is extreme.
Nov. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A virtually unbiddable slam? I find myself bug eyed in disbelief. Slam would be good even opposite x Kxxxx Axxx Axx, yet we cannot bid with the K on top of that?
Nov. 27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 53 54 55 56
.

Bottom Home Top