How close is 4H here if declarer gets it all right (e.g. via a club infra-finesse, then running the CQ). It looks to be there but how “clever” was the 4D cue bid in retrospect? It ensured that declarer wouldn’t try to cash the 2d diamond although clearly not covering the club wasn’t too bright either.
Also (and for AVRR) see an update to yesterday’s blog – annoying to say the least.
Regards,
Iain
bobbywolffDecember 9th, 2021 at 8:04 pm
Hi Iain,
Note: I’ve already heard and replied (on yesterdays hand) to your temporary, but obviously annoying news.
While the club infra-finesse is possible, it is definitely anti-percentage, making it an illogical effort, only approved of when the opponents bidding or possibly specific defense up to then, rings a bell which is not often rung.
Giving partner as much information as possible is IMO not close to 100% correct in application. The opponents (at least highly talented ones) are always listening and sometimes incredibly educated as to what to do, when unnecessarily presented with how-to information.
In competitive auctions, my overwhelming choice, (meaning almost all situations) is not to choose that approach, but merely compete the same way one might, when saves are often being taken, rather than tipping partner off of extra strength, although overheard by those pesky and often difficult to defeat, foes.
“You pays your money, you takes your chances” but always in search of what is best for your partnership. I clearly vote obfuscation to the opponents, especially against worthy adversaries and damned be he (even myself) when partner then later decries, “I didn’t dream you had such a good hand”.
Fie on him for making too many decisions, which partnerships soon learn to deal with, of if not, find another partner, who doesn’t mind losing as much.
Eventually, perhaps similar to a very compatible marriage, very good bridge players eventually (if not sooner) will find their best partnership mate.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
HI Bobby,
How close is 4H here if declarer gets it all right (e.g. via a club infra-finesse, then running the CQ). It looks to be there but how “clever” was the 4D cue bid in retrospect? It ensured that declarer wouldn’t try to cash the 2d diamond although clearly not covering the club wasn’t too bright either.
Also (and for AVRR) see an update to yesterday’s blog – annoying to say the least.
Regards,
Iain
Hi Iain,
Note: I’ve already heard and replied (on yesterdays hand) to your temporary, but obviously annoying news.
While the club infra-finesse is possible, it is definitely anti-percentage, making it an illogical effort, only approved of when the opponents bidding or possibly specific defense up to then, rings a bell which is not often rung.
Giving partner as much information as possible is IMO not close to 100% correct in application. The opponents (at least highly talented ones) are always listening and sometimes incredibly educated as to what to do, when unnecessarily presented with how-to information.
In competitive auctions, my overwhelming choice, (meaning almost all situations) is not to choose that approach, but merely compete the same way one might, when saves are often being taken, rather than tipping partner off of extra strength, although overheard by those pesky and often difficult to defeat, foes.
“You pays your money, you takes your chances” but always in search of what is best for your partnership. I clearly vote obfuscation to the opponents, especially against worthy adversaries and damned be he (even myself) when partner then later decries, “I didn’t dream you had such a good hand”.
Fie on him for making too many decisions, which partnerships soon learn to deal with, of if not, find another partner, who doesn’t mind losing as much.
Eventually, perhaps similar to a very compatible marriage, very good bridge players eventually (if not sooner) will find their best partnership mate.