Unusual twist on playing the card you are known to hold when you have two such cards. 3N (even 4N) is much easier though so maybe North should bid 4N over 4C although it is difficult to blame South for getting excited with that lot.
Regards,
Iain
bobbywolffAugust 9th, 2024 at 5:28 pm
Hi Iain and anyone else who feels trapped into having to listen to me,
Yes, the lesson listed to be explored is “always play the card you are known to have”, rather than supply information to those dreaded opponents who are always your direct and (for competitive purposes) talented foes.
Thus, for North to JUMP to 3NT, instead of merely 2N is not to be believed and IMO
is the principle reason for the final contract of 3NT not to be achieved (a writer’s excuse, in this case, to emphasize the play, certainly not that choice of overbid).
Writing about bridge is indeed a pleasant experience, except for the times that foolishness of a bid or bids is necessary to set up the reason (emphasizing the play), this time, for inclusion.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
Hi Bobby,
Unusual twist on playing the card you are known to hold when you have two such cards. 3N (even 4N) is much easier though so maybe North should bid 4N over 4C although it is difficult to blame South for getting excited with that lot.
Regards,
Iain
Hi Iain and anyone else who feels trapped into having to listen to me,
Yes, the lesson listed to be explored is “always play the card you are known to have”, rather than supply information to those dreaded opponents who are always your direct and (for competitive purposes) talented foes.
Thus, for North to JUMP to 3NT, instead of merely 2N is not to be believed and IMO
is the principle reason for the final contract of 3NT not to be achieved (a writer’s excuse, in this case, to emphasize the play, certainly not that choice of overbid).
Writing about bridge is indeed a pleasant experience, except for the times that foolishness of a bid or bids is necessary to set up the reason (emphasizing the play), this time, for inclusion.