Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Anthony Pettengell
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think my answer depends on scoring, which we haven't been given. At MPs I think no real blame; West could have made a move, but moving past 3N to seek an uncertain club slam isn't clear to me (though maybe it should be?). At IMPs I think blame clearly belongs with West, who should make a move. In no way can I see East being to blame, with that shape and heart holding.
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted then went to the other poll, which I hadn't seen before - I agree exactly with your comment there Richard. That diamond suit just makes it worth the 2NT stretch in my opinion, but it's close (Qx in hearts isn't great, and Kx spades is a single stopper which can't be held up), and pass may well still be the best option.
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is interesting. I'm used to having the difference be signalling, so opener can ask for attitude or count by choosing between A or K, and I'd hesitate to give that up.

How was your experience of the quasi-count leads Steve, and was it worth it vs a different AK distinction?
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would only rebid 1 with an 18+ balanced hand if the hand had 5 spades, and I'm happy with that systemic treatment, but thank you for the suggestion. I agree with the 1 rebid rather than 2N or 2 when opener does have 5 spades.

Incidentally, 99% of the time the 18+ will be 18-20 or 13+ as per Brian, and probably ought to have been described as such systemically. I left it open as I wonder whether certain 21-23 hands short in hearts would decline to open 2 but then decide a 2N rebid is best after a heart response… but this probably shouldn't be part of the systemic description. I haven't discussed this with partner and it hasn't come up yet, so there's no unspoken partnership agreement on that point that needs to be disclosed.

As per my other reply below, what is responder's 3 here to you Brian?
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Having thought about it more subsequent to comments, the argument for all natural makes sense.

My initial thought was there still needed to be a way to find a 4-4 spade fit where responder had 4 cards in each major, but the uninterrupted sequence 1-1-2NT-3 doesn't need to promise 5+ hearts as opener has denied interest in a 5-3 heart fit. The one downside I can see to this is it wrong-sides spade contracts, which with a Checkback variant would be played by the strong balanced hand.

Given natural continuations, is that what people would suggest? What suit lengths should 3, 3 and 3 by responder show respectively? What are people's suggested continuations (other than the obvious game bids)?

If not, how would you deal with the responder hands with 4 cards in each major?
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Exactly as Brian describes. We use standard Odwrotka at the moment, but acknowledge that some 3-card heart suits don't want to be locked into the major if partner were to show a 5-card suit with the Odwrotka answer, hence 2NT could technically include 3 cards in responder's major.
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What are your agreements about the double? I have voted on the assumption that you have defined the double as takeout, despite the level, because it seems a clear pass to me otherwise.
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed. Conversely, I'll quite happily double 2 for takeout later if that's what comes back to me after having overcalled.
Oct. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting timing as I just commented on another thread (the big club NT range one) about this very thing, before noticing your thread.

I like including a strong option, but mainly because in Polish club those strong 5-5 minor hands are awkward to deal with after a 1 opening and it eases up the system to remove them. That's the more compelling reason rather than any intrinsic good from the opening itself.

The weak 5-5 minor hand comes up rarely enough as an opening, but seems to work well when it does. The strong option is shockingly rare, so I can't give strong evidentially founded opinions (I think it's come up once), but in terms of theory and practice-bidding it seems fine. The split range doesn't stop me from preempting as advancer.

I strongly agree with Peter Fordham above that you need a large enough gap between the two hand types. I've played 5/6-10 or 17/18+ which fits nicely into Polish.

I think intermediate ranges, e.g. 10-13 as suggested in the OP, might suffer from it somewhat. Adding 17/18+ hands (which often equate to 4-loser hands with those shapes) might be a bit close to what you have already, with not a big enough gap, and 20+ 5-5 minor hands are vanishingly rare. Even just on their own, intermediate hands often want to buy the auction at the 2-level, and may be able to do just that if you don't preempt yourself.
Oct. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My preference for 2NT opening (in a Polish context) is both minors, 5+/5+, but not just weak - have it split range. Weak (5-10 or whatever range you prefer) OR 17+. It's really nice to take the strong 5-5 minor hands out of 1 because they are otherwise unwieldy. It does mean ending up at the 4-level with those strong hands most of the time (you'll bid on one time over partner's 3/ sign-off), but you'll similarly end up that high after opening 1 in the traditional Polish scheme, as 2 is used as an artificial rebid. This is no doubt sub-optimal, but it's a simple improvement.

With a natural 2 rebid in auctions such as 1-1-2, there is little need for this, but putting very strong hands in there seems to have little downside that I can see, albeit as you raise the starting point the hands become exceedingly rare so there is also limited upside.

In any event I agree with the general concept of 1 auctions being better than strong 2NT openers, so some kind of artificial preemptive use of 2NT makes a lot of sense to me. I'm a fan of Kokish in Precision (doesn't work in Polish).
Oct. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't quite follow why Smith is harder to play in tempo than anything else… you have ample time at trick one to work out (possibly with dependancies based on what declarer will play) whether you like partner's lead. Having worked that out, it's really not hard to play the signalling card in tempo. General attitude and suit preference signals are just as likely to be the culprits for out of tempo signalling, I would think. Count is admittedly easier, as it requires no judgment once you've decided that a count signal is required.

I don't own Hamman's ‘At the Table’, however, so haven't read it, and while I've played Smith/Reverse Smith without (I hope) issue, not many people near me when in Nottingham used it. So there's very likely an angle I have missed. Do you have time to elaborate Richard?
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The way I've played it, an immediate 2 would be GF, and 2 followed by 2 over 2 would be an invite, but it's clear from the poll options that an immediate 2 could be invitational too - in which case I don't know what the distinction is.
Oct. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would be perfectly happy with a 1NT rebid in SA, but wouldn't do it without prior discussion with partner. Ditto opening 1 and rebidding 2, though it's more of a strong/Polish club thing really, not worth adding that ambiguity when unnecessary.

I can't abide a 1 rebid here.
Aug. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would similarly be very interested in seeing other people's LaTeX templates - in my case EBU-format ideally, but anything would be interesting/useful.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you need to be quite judicious when deciding whether to open a Muiderberg 2 (ditto Lucas, Polish etc, whatever variant). It's not about HCP, quite the opposite, but purity. HCP in your long suits are good, and pointy doubletons are very bad. Qx/AJxxx/Kx/xxxx may technically have the points and distribution to open a Muidy 2, and a good enough heart suit for it, but I'd never open it as one at any vulnerability - FAR too defensive. x/AJxxx/xxx/KQxx is a far better candidate obviously, but so is x/AJxxx/xxx/xxxx even.

I opened 3 at the table, for similar reasons to you, but I feel I should be opening 2 in this position as per Kevin/Patrick above.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I concur with 15-19. The 3NT rebid is ugly and so should be very specific - like Brad suggested, some kind of ‘picture bid’ perhaps. Even if don't have the time to work out a range enquiry yet, I think keeping all those balanced hands in 2NT (and allowing your normal strain enquiries below 3NT) is preferred. All these are workable though.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner will never take you for possibly having 6 hearts if you open 2, so the sixth heart would be lost. I can't imagine 2 as a viable bid on this hand myself - you've still preempted spades, and the disparity between the heart and club suits is extreme.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, you need a different system for that (unless your original runout system is relatively simple), because the forcing pass isn't available.
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's what I was expecting, 2 here but 3 in 1st or 3rd, but wanted to check the consensus. Thanks.
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, I should have defined that. In the U.K. many call them Lucas Twos, which are very similar as well (5 cards in the major, 4+ in any other suit - so could be both majors unlike Muiderberg).
July 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
.

Bottom Home Top