Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Anthony Pettengell
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very true - I mean you'd hope never to have to lead from xxx against suit contracts if possible, but occasionally all other options are equally bad or worse.
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's generally the gist, and works fine in NT. In trumps, in an English 2/4 context you have the danger of being mistaken for a doubleton, with the second round being too late for the decision. Not an issue in Polish 2/4. I don't know Slawinski (will go and look it up now).
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Similar on Gerber and MUD. Gerber is fine as an immediate response to 1NT/2NT openings, and I've had it on my card with various partners - never bid it though.

I've played MUD often, and while I'm not satisfied with it, I'm not convinced there is anything that much better to lead from xxx when you're playing English 2/4 attitude leads - not enough to request a different lead agreement from a partner who wants to play MUD, anyway.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the comment Bazil.

Most people have said less than stellar things about Middlesbrough. I don't know it myself, but the North-East is lovely (I was in Durham as a student for 6 years) and I can't be that picky about location when it involves pupillage!

Having looked online it seems what you say is still the case. There are small clubs in Middlesbrough, Stockton etc, but St Georges is the only place of note nearby. Newcastle would be fine for matches/events, but definitely too far for a regular game. I've already emailed St Georges; had a pleasant reply but a bit early for them to facilitate anything.

I'll look out for Bill March then. Anyone else you know of who is still up there?
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I noticed you and Julie as we came in, but we were an hour late so couldn't say hi… I think you'd gone by the time we finished the last set. My partner and I both had the old time in mind, so we missed the first 7 boards - our scores for those are from a substitute pair. This means I didn't play this board unfortunately!
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Jim: Oh that's what I do normally with my Polish 1D, a NT rebid is 5332 or 4441 with a singleton in partner's suit - but I thought Ronald was proposing 1NT as an artificial rebid showing longer clubs; as he has now clarified, the bid simply encompasses that rather than showing it.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Jim: Polish doesn't have out-of-range NT's. 1NT is 15-17; 12-14 and 18+ go in 1 (save that some may have a balanced range such as 21=23 or 24-26 in a Multi).

@Ronald: I think mostly it's habit because the same is done with the majors, but I can see some merit in that idea - particularly at MP when 1NT is often the ideal contract with those minor suit hands.

Out of interest, what do you rebid with 1=4=4=4 after responder bids 1? Do you pretend that hand has longer clubs and rebid 1NT?
June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Dave: thanks for clarifying. I wouldn't say this makes a big difference. 11-14 vs Precision 11-15, but more importantly having 4-card majors in there is more likely to be an issue for the part-score battles at MP than anything else, where the exact range doesn't matter so much. Point noted though, I hadn't thought about the fact that the range is tighter.

@Rainer: But that doesn't solve the 2 just by doing that. You still have the hands with (34)=1=5, which can't go into the 1 without breaking it. Ok, you can add in a Precision 2 bid, but I don't think there's as much need for it in Polish and I'd prefer to stick to using my Multi 2 and 2-suited 2/2 bids (or weaker Multi and constructive weak 2s if you prefer). 4=4=1=4 hands go into the 1 bid, but I personally don't want to weaken the preparatory part of 1 further by including 12-14 (34)=1=5 hands there too.

If it weren't for that I might consider including those (14)=3=5 hands in the 1, but I'd prefer not to. I want to be able to aggressively raise diamonds in competition, the way you can with both minors in Acol. 1 is most often 5+, as the 4-card hands (4441 and (xx)=4=5) are infrequent and in any event have enough diamond length to survive it. I don't want to add a 3-card diamond pattern in there too, not when it means shifting other parts of the system as well.

TL;DR: yes, that can work, but I personally don't like the other changes it requires.
June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Dave: yes, that's the precision 2 treatment I prefer - but the original was specifically 4=4=1=4 or 4=4=0=5, so it needs specifying.

I'm not certain what point you're making re the Polish 2 opening, sorry. I'm possibly too tired.
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If a Precision 2 is open to you, extending this to (43)=1=5 hands is preferable in my opinion. 1 is then 2+, and the (41)=3=5 hands bid the same way as hands with 4 diamonds and 5 clubs did anyway. Not much more ambiguity than there was before, and you've solved the 2 opening.

In a Polish Club context, I'll accept 2 as the weak bid and have it only promise 5+ clubs (with 4-card major if 5-card club suit). I don't want to weaken the excellent 1 opening (which promises 4+, and is only balanced if 5 diamonds) in order to fix 2.
June 12
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ok, with Jxx in dummy, partner can't have lead a singleton K as that would leave declarer with Qxxxx, which is impossible on the bidding. Kx with partner and Qxxx with declarer is technically possible (declarer being 4=5=4=0) but extremely unlikely - that lead might be made against 4 but is unlikely to be made against 6, too likely to blow the setting trick.

If dummy had two spades, I would say it was definitely West's fault, because then East must have at least three spades and then must logically have the Queen.

As it is, there is uncertainty for West, so I think East is more at fault. I can't see how a switch to any suit would be useful with that dummy. Too many hearts to stop diamond ruffs if they're needed, all diamond finesses are working etc. If there's a club trick then it won't go away by continuing spades. If declarer had A then they would have taken the first trick and lead up to the J later, as David notes below.

I'd still overtake as West, mind. I'll gamble on partner not having lead from Kx to ensure spades are continued.
June 11
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We really need the rest of the hands (plus dummy) in order to answer this properly.

(I mean it's very likely to be more West's fault, drawing inferences from what you've said, as they will have the most information, but I hesitate to say so without knowing everything.)
June 10
Anthony Pettengell edited this comment June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you're playing Lebensohl then this is what I'd assume as standard (reverse the stoppers for the two Stayman cuebids to match your version of Lebensohl if appropriate). It's what matches the other positions of standard Lebensohl, so even though it can be played in various ways this is simplest for memory reasons.
June 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with the 2 bid NV; the quality of the suit is paramount in sandwich position, and I hate the idea of passing with a 0-6-4-3 hand when the suit is good enough. I fully understand why some people would think it silly though.

The second auction I think is sillier, simply because you have an easy action on the first round (2 for me at this vulnerability), and acting early is almost always better.
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 is Drury so doesn't show the club suit. 2 would be slam seeking for most of my partnerships, so the choice is (in my opinion) between 2 or 4.
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am just as happy with 1 on hand 3, and would likely open 1 myself, but I can't fault my partner for opening 1NT. I can't remember ever opening 1NT with a singleton myself, but this is the sort of hand you might consider it on if at all, surely?

For 2 see my reply to Leonard below. I don't want to comment on opposing bids myself for these matches so will leave the 2NT overcall for others to dissect.

In case it wasn't clear, the 2 bid after Drury was a simple error, no need to dwell on it. Far more interesting, I think, is the choice between counter-invite (2) and game. Which would you choose in her place?
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Fine” is perhaps too strong, but it really does depend on agreements and what partner is expecting. If your range is 5-9 for example (I don't know what their weak 2 range is to be fair) then what 5 point hands are you allowed to bid on? KQTxxx with a singleton? Looks like a 6 point hand to me.

Admittedly, this is exactly the reason I like the scheme Ivan and I play, which is constructive weak 2s with a weaker Multi, both varying by vulnerability. In that context this is a perfectly ok (if still minimum) vulnerable 2 opener.

Definitely agreed that you have to draw the line somewhere, and maybe that line should be between this hand and the same hand with the J moved to the heart suit - but I just hate passing this!
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For us that would be the simple raise, 2: 6-9 with a club fit.
May 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No explicit agreement, but I would guess 1 most of the time. It will be interesting to see whether my partner says the same thing!
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Though I don't have experience with ‘back in the day’ for the concept (I learnt at uni 5 years ago, so basically everything is takeout), I think you're completely right about the most common defensive error being a lack of takeout double.

In particular, the auction 2 (P) 2/2 AP, against beginners, is often one where opener's RHO ought to have doubled. The pass out seat is easier because they can more easily imagine it as the weak 2 it should be treated as, but even then it can be missed.

This isn't an issue of complexity though, as (from your comment) you well appreciate!
April 22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.

Bottom Home Top