Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Stefan Olausson
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 30 31 32 33
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
-
3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
pg#1. I sure open 1, but with gazilli one should also find the fit.

1 1NT
2* 2*(=extras)
2NT 3

or similar.
3 hours ago
Stefan Olausson edited this comment 3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>“In the final for the Zimmerman Trophy they beat Team Ventin – Hult, Nystrom, Palma, Ventin & Wrang 84-76 IMPs”

Looks more like 95-90?
Or was there some late correction/adjustment to the results?

http://db.eurobridge.org/Repository/competitions/18Monaco/microSite/Asp/knockoutphase.asp?qtournid=1482&qphase=FF
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I meant, how do you force to game with trump-support, instead of Jacoby?
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What do you use instead of Jacoby?
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>“problems, the biggest is the most common bid is 4M a minimum with nothing to show”

Yes, see the first comments to this post:

https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/jacoby-2nt-rebids-by-opener/


3♣ any minimum
all the rest shows extras
3♦ no singelton
3♥ singelton ♣
3♠ singelton ♦
3NT singelton other M

after 3♣ the responder can ask for singelton with 3♦ and the answers (3♥ - 3NT) is the same as above.
Feb. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I prefer opener's first response is 3C to show a minimum hand.

If both players are minimum for the game-force, we have not given out any unnecessary info to the defenders (we bid 1M-2NT-3C-4M-P).

Only if responder has considerable extra-strength, he will start asking or showing something to opener and over 3C we still have plenty of room to explore slam-chances.

The normal sequence for slam-investigation is:
- first establish if the general strength, including distributional fit makes slam possible or likely.
- next, cue-bids to check that we do not have 2 quick losers in any suit.
- finally, use RKC to check the keycards.

The reason you *first* want to exhange distribution info is it often greatly helps judging the general combined strength.

If pard shows a singleton and you hold KJxx in that suit, you probably have ~4 wasted hcps for your contract.
While if you hold Axxx or xxxx in the suit, it is positive info your hcps are useful and not wasted.

No reason to switch this sequence after Jacoby-2NT.
Feb. 22
Stefan Olausson edited this comment Feb. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Peter

> “partner led the 8 through declarer”

I dont understand what you mean….

*Leading* the 8 from KJ98…
What's that got to do with UDCA?
Seems more like a leading-convention issue than signalling?
Feb. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Dale

I've virtually only played UDCA for decades (except w random pickup-pards online)… and, NO, it's NOT random.

Even if the main-argument for UDCA is not specifically holdings like KJ98 vs KJ32, I cannot even remember when I last had a problem of this kind when *chosing* a discard.

If you play UDCA and want to encourage/discourage from KJ98, at least you don't have a problem *which card to play*.

Pard might sometimes need to sharpen his vision (here realizing that 8 might be your lowest), of course, but *discarding* is virtually *never* the problem.
Feb. 21
Stefan Olausson edited this comment Feb. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So declarer rebid 2NT holding:

QJxxxx
KQxx
x
J9

or

QJxxx
KQxxx
x
J9

or what? :)
Feb. 19
Stefan Olausson edited this comment Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Announces to the other robots you mean?
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For comparison, I keep trying “The Disciplined Way” :)
Clocked in at 66.8%, # 215/7881.

Had one board at 46% – I was too “optimistic” in compet bidding.

Another at 44% – misplayed to miss an overtrick.

The rest above 50%.
Feb. 18
Stefan Olausson edited this comment Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Marty Harris

I probably need a simulation to see how “close” to zero it is with 18-19 hcp…

I agree they will often probably miss the lead, but that's a different argument :)
Feb. 18
Stefan Olausson edited this comment Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
yeah, “well done for discarding your loser”

:)
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>“Should East-West have saved in 5♠ (down three)? No, for that would have cost them an additional 40 aggregate points when North-South bid the equally cold 5NT.”

Are you really sure they would have reached 5NT? :)

I'd rather say
“No, saving for 500 against a 5-level contract that might sometimes go down is bad business in the long run” :)
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@David
From your question, I figured you maybe played the 3 and your pard switched suit… :)
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>“the risk that we're off the AK of diamonds is close to zero”

Is it?
Even if West held 22 hcp (rather than only 18 promised) we could still be missing a control:

KJ
AKJx
QJxx
AQJ

Take away A, still 18hcp, and we even go down in 5.
Feb. 17
Stefan Olausson edited this comment Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about playing UDCA…..
Feb. 17
Stefan Olausson edited this comment Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Mixed-up”, in the sense that:

- If A looks right, why do I do B? :)
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>“ It looks like underleading the ace of diamonds is the right play. You choose to lead the ♥8.”

Yet another of these “mixed-up conclusions” that Kit loves to include :)

True, if declarer misguesses the diamonds too after the underlead, we can set it 3 down.
Feb. 17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 30 31 32 33
.

Bottom Home Top