Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Robert Stevens
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 49 50 51 52
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Craig, it is an interesting result, and I am most surprised. The spots are so miserable that one would have thought the length opposite would be an important factor. And opposite a five card suit, the chance of two or fewer s increases. Evidently the other factors are yet more important.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like opening 1 and then bidding 3N regardless. Not a few players know this shows stoppers in the suit LHO had not bid, and then lead LHO's suit. So I really don't care too much about s whether or not bid.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With one and two s I believe it is best to take the false preference: that will work wonders opposite canape. Horrible, sure. But 2 contract is likely to be just as horrible. By bidding 2 you will be better when partner has a 5431 pattern with extras, or six s … provided that your idiot knows this is the style and doesn't just blast out four because of your “preference”. Here is one example from quite recent memory:
!x KQ9xx AJxx AQx Axxx x xx KJxxxx — 2 down with 5 (or even six on the wrong lead) making.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have to believe your result, but I find it flies in the face of conventional wisdom. The more partner has, the bigger the misfit. And misfits make fewer tricks.
Aug. 14
Robert Stevens edited this comment Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Where might we like to play? 2 possibly. God know how we get there after rebidding 2.
1N may be a poor contract. I doubt that it will ever be as horrible as playing 2 opposite Axxxx Jxxxx x xx.

In the main, I am with the late Al Roth. You don't rebid in a four card suit unless you have extra values.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Duuuh. It must have been late… how obtuse of me :)
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I never expect anything on BBO,.
I guess if it goes 4 passes in succession I might find the 6 bid
Aug. 12
Robert Stevens edited this comment Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ian, if you have, then they were either rigged or taken, together with others more nondescript ,from some archive of previous hands. I am not sure whether you are speaking tongue-in-cheek.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
): Kieran, you echo my thoughts exactly .. hence my aside about partner having a short memory. Having seen that first hand, I was not about to pass again. And, darn it, if he didn't come down with exactly the same support again!
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Charles: as Ken says. Alas no, we did not get our one and only trick.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Speaking as someone who has often passed such hands, I would agree that it does not work well. All too often are the opponents able to steal the hand. I am wondering whether the whole concept of doubles against nebulous 1, and its sometime cousin 1, is misconceived.
David Burn (qv below) has a good comment. I am wondering how many have migrated to such a method.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sounds to me like a good method.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing against these nebulous 1 systems, I have given up playing takeout doubles. It seems that too often one does not have the right pattern. I now play that double of 1 shows a sound opening 1 bid (fewer than 6 cards though). Admittedly, that does not solve the problem on this hand, but, as several others have stated, waiting for the perfect pattern does not seem a good tactic against these systems.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Phillip
I like your analysis, with a quibble. Is “guard squeeze” the canonical terminology? That is not what I would term a guard squeeze. Quibble aside, great hand.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not unless you employ the Bergovoy coup if needed.


…Edited. Scrub that. Still a good coup.
Aug. 4
Robert Stevens edited this comment Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a stronger comment on the Teshome advice: Tosh.
Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Reading this,makes me despair. FYI, the K&R evaluation, about as accurate as one can get, has this hand at 12.7 Miltons.
Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, so much for that “acid test”. I should have done my math.
Aug. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am completely on board with these jumps to slam without giving away infromation. But whenever I try it the leader always seems to have AK in some suit. I'll keep on trying.
July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Alas, the greyhound slipped the leash.
July 31
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 49 50 51 52
.

Bottom Home Top