Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Robin Hillyard
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 74 75 76 77
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East COULD have doubled. West SHOULD have doubled.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are still two unclaimed suits and we're only at the two-level. I can't see any reason why either of these situations should be penalty. It might (emphasis on might) be different if 1NT was non-forcing but even then, I think takeout-orientation is best.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As others have eloquently put it, the rules of bridge (and your system) require you to bid something. No other bid describes your hand. Therefore what's left is 3.

I think it's alertable (isn't fourth-suit-forcing always alertable) because its primary purpose is not to offer diamonds as a place to play (even though you might end up playing in diamonds). It's primary purpose is to give partner another chance to bid.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tough problem! Btw, it’s great that we can comment from the app now.
Oct. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for your votes and comments.

My purpose in asking these questions was to find out what's “normal.” It seems to me that when you lead T in either a side suit, or partner's suit, there is a strong supposition by partner that you are leading a doubleton and looking for a ruff. This assumes that our hand has most of the strength (and therefore entries) in our partnership.

However, there is also the possibility that the T was from T9(x) and was the chosen passive lead. If this is the case, then following on the next round with the 9 at least suggests to partner that you might have a third card, especially if you play present standard count. Whereas, if you play the lowest card, partner doesn't know about the 9 and therefore is likely to think that you led a doubleton, hoping for a ruff.

It seems that most of the voters are in agreement with this principle, at least based on the fact that 67% are playing the 9 in both situations. Of course, they may have different reasons, but those reasons are consistent with mine, at least.

At the table, the low card was played both times. In the second case (partner was a robot), it made no difference. In the first case, however, I went wrong and gave declarer access to a winner he could never have reached without me trying to give partner a ruff ;)
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, maybe I should have stated the SP scheme. But I thought that was almost universal, and that, without specific information to the contrary, I'd assume “normal” SP.

Would it have made any difference (in Q 2) if declarer's second card had been the J instead of the Q? Now, it seems to me, partner might still be in the dark about the count.
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, I put in two “others.” Were neither of them appropriate to you?

Later edit: now there are three.
Oct. 9
Robin Hillyard edited this comment Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great city–period, Kevin :) Sports is just the icing on the cake!
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I should indeed have bid as Ben says above. After the 3 and 3 bids, I think 4 is the most descriptive as it should imply shortness in spades and help in diamonds. I'm pretty sure we'd have reached our slam then (and probably after a belated 3 too).
Sept. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I sometimes find myself looking at a card such as this one (e.g. 46%) and am baffled how it can be so bad when we got so many “tops”. I'm still trying to figure out why achieving or beating par can earn so few matchpoints ;)
Sept. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's a thought-provoking comment you make there re: trying to win in the auction. Come to think of it, both of your comments are thought-provoking.
Sept. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, 4NT was quantitative. I suppose I didn't make that clear. I thought it was obvious, sorry. Would you consider un-abstaining? Have now edited the OP to make it clearer.
Sept. 25
Robin Hillyard edited this comment Sept. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for your votes. I gave you the Robot's hand because I wanted to know if you considered moving past 4NT was accepting slam and simply looking for a possible fit.

The robot at my table passed 5 and it was just as well, since that was the limit of the hand. It surprised me, though.
Sept. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, me too (agreeing with Richard), but I don't think the OP is really interested in that. What he wants to know is what to do now.
Sept. 24
Robin Hillyard edited this comment Sept. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just trying an experiment here (because I have no idea what these warnings are all about): Playing Bridge in your house. Red on White: to Trump in is a big mistake you are just winning air.

EDIT: So, yes, I saw the warning: Potentially objectionable… Where is this coming from? BridgeWinners is presumably analyzing the content using some third-party sentiment analyzer. Suggestion: try others, especially those with a white list.
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Simple rule: when they jump the bidding, our double is takeout-oriented; if we jump the bidding, it's penalty-oriented.As Bob Heitzman says above, a penalty-oriented double can be removed with a good (or should I say GOOD) reason.
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My apologies! I know sometimes (other) people get confused about which hand is which.
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you all for your votes and comments. I hope that not too many of the voters “didn't know about DONT (or Donut) runouts,” because the purpose of the poll was to find out what was the generally accepted action here. People guessing tends to generate fake news.

At the table, I thought I was allowed (even expected) to pass with my hand, so I did. I felt a little bad for the opponents because of our misunderstanding. However, if I redouble and they take it out to 2, they would be -500 on proper defense.

As it was we were only +380, still a top but if another pair had stumbled into 3NT and made it we'd have lost a matchpoint.

Partner's hand was 98 AJ932 KT7 AT5.
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You don't. You can see your hand in the OP.
Sept. 11
Robin Hillyard edited this comment Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I didn't alert because I didn't think I was supposed to XX. I described pass as neutral: nothing to say. I did feel a little bad because apparently partner expected me to XX. But I didn't think DONT runouts included that agreement. That was the main purpose of my poll.
Sept. 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 74 75 76 77
.

Bottom Home Top