Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Alex Brett
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Speaking as an outsider, certainly in the UK for a 2C Precision we simply say “Intermediate” it may deviate slightly, but it would not be considered a psych, however if it is notably less and partner failed to take a normal action, i.e. Relay or GF bid then of course it is liable to be considered an illegal understanding. Many may stretch a 6C+4M hand or longer suit in that category with say 9-10 HCP, the artificial categorisation of HCP implies there is no licence for judgment. One fears directors may be overzealous.
Oct. 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The real issue is the strength being substantially lower than 10-15, and without any agreements on 3rd in hand opening being disclosed. There is definitely no question of fielding here, it is not an invitational hand unless partner is absolutely top of the range and even then there is little in the way of fit. 4 is the horrendous bid, frankly I am more intrigued to know how that was reached rather than a lenient ruling,
Oct. 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The third suit is only forcing in sequences where it is higher than the original bid suit. One surely wouldn't tell someone playing standard methods that 1H 1S 2D is forcing it is simply showing 5H and 4+D and is a minimum to intermediate opening hand. The 2H bid is merely showing 5S and 4+H. There is a lot of difference between 1C 1H 2C 2S and 1C 1S 2C 2H, the first one is 100% forcing, the latter is for preference.
June 12, 2016
Alex Brett edited this comment June 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The first 1NT response has caused more trouble here and is compounded by a limit bid on the basis of partner's assumed strength. I play that over a suit response following a forcing NT, that 3m should be NF and to play, but if partner is offering 5323 and a balanced hand, Axx opposite this hand in NT will fair reasonably decently. If you have an agreement that 3m is a weak signoff it is fine, but the suit is pretty dire.
May 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Probably my terminology isn't as good as it should be, my main message is 2H is insufficient, 3H conveys length but no extra strength and prevents a 2S bid from LHO whereas 4H would have length with top controls in the suit which does not apply here and 2S implies extra strength which isn't there.

Opener is marked with anything from 10 to a bad 16HCP and partner has doubled in a balancing position. 3H would leave enough room for cue bidding if partner has slam prospects or else he simply bids 4H. On the basis of the double he should have heart tolerance as a minimum probably at least 3 cards, so there is no real worry about him not bidding game; but, why not give him the space he needs to explore, opposite this hand he really does not need a massive one to make 6H.
May 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The salient point is that the clubs should be shown to have value in order to consider the hand for ongoing bidding, partner is still unlimited at this point and if he has 2H he will bid 2H in which case one would bid 4H. The quality of the clubs is also insufficient to withstand a pass at the 3 level if partner has xx or worse, substitute the K of spades for the K of clubs and now 3C would be more sound.
May 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think 2C is the bid here, the clubs are nowhere near good enough to bid them at the 3 level, and partner is not precluded from having H support on this bidding. All he has shown thus far is 6+HCP and 4+S, in instances with 2H and 3C partner may well go back to H at the 2 level, not so if he has bid at the 3 level; also if partner has long S he is unlikely to show them and Kx with a void opposite a 6 card suit must surely have some play.
May 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Trump lead
May 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems doubtful that a contract at the 5 level will survive undoubled, partner is marked probably with a doubleton H on the bidding. The NT bid is suggestive that maybe one of the minor suit Ks will break in our favour, I certainly don't want partner to sacrifice here so double seems reasonable.
May 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The biggest problem here is the colours, non-vul vs vul, there may be merit in balancing, although one runs the risk if partner thinks you have 4S to make a balancing double and you end up in 2S with a 3-3 fit too. On balance the shape and the adverse vulnerability make passing a percentage action.
May 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would take 3H as more of a long suit, barrage here, a good hand with H and ongoing could bid 2S in principle as a cue bid, 2H is a generic minimum response which tells partner remarkably little, one could be 4333. The salient feature of this hand is pure length in H opposite a balancing X, it simply requests partner to judge his hand by bidding 3H.
May 21, 2016
Alex Brett edited this comment May 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2H seems the only reasonable bid - partner has ruled out 4 spades by not rebidding 1NT or 1S. Opener's 3rd bid will make clear the extent of any fit, so far we can only ascertain that he has at most 5 cards in the majors. I would not force to game.
May 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a partial Turk and somebody who has played in Istanbul several times. The card play is technically very good; but, in bidding their tendency to overbid is a weakness; defence also lacks discipline. Their enthusiasm is both a blessing for the game and simultaneously a curse for some.
May 4, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top