Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Benoit Lessard
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 238 239 240 241
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Opening 1NT with even values on both side block 4-4 fit for everybody.

Its true that after a 1m opening you will never miss the 4-4 fit while your opponents might still have a 4-4 fit and wont be able to bid it.

Note that i agree that you need at least on K to X on this hand. H

However I strongly disagree about the front card thing since you need to X with a fair amount of unbalanced hand and advancer need to bailout at 2c or at least at 2d with crappy hand that cannot stand the X.
5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Restoring equity is IMO about finding a balance of expected outcome on this particular deal and redress some of the consequences of bad claims that wont be caught on other deals.”

Also from Terence
“They are so knowing, that they know nothing.”
14 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Its not really complicated, showing the spade control before showing strenght will allow opponents to know about the control even if both side have minimum values.

Showing values before showing the control allow you to signoff when both are minimum and will not leak info about the control situation.

Hover when 3NT is non-serious it can be passed, wich is not the case when 3NT is a cue.
20 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
hes saying that switching 3S and 3NT doesnt matter for the ablity to show extras and doesnt matterr for the ability to show a controls.

Its simply symmetrical binary switches
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I open 1NT weak (instead of 1m) I already made huge gains, ive blocked many one level bids and showed a precise amount of strenght, my game bidding and finding 5-3 partscore is now much easier for us that for my opponents.

This is also true for a strong NT but for a lesser degree, the frequency is lower and its less likely to be opponent hands so a strong NT steal or annoy less often.

So the way to get some of the equity back over a weak NT is to X from time to time, using the fact that 1NTx is more likely to be right when opener is weak than when he is strong.

That why you need to X penalty with some unbalanced hand and convert for penalties also with unbalanced hand. If penalty doubles of 1NT didnt exist strong NT would be rare. That how good 1NT weak is when its shielded of opps X.

Also the only opponents I know who need an opening hand to balanced in the 4th seat are right now working as Xmas elves making gifts for the weak NT players.
21 hours ago
Benoit Lessard edited this comment 21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also its MP wich is more annoying since -180 is likely to be a clean zero. While +100/+200 (undoubled contract) is likely to be a good score anyway.
Nov. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Is it not unfair to fail to follow the rules of the game?”

Many laws especially the claiming laws are to restore equity from damages not to punish irregularities. So obviously claiming like this is a brain fart and a mistake that is not good bridge but its irrelevant. What you need to do is look at the the damage done by this claim and by similar bad claim and make sure the long term equity is restored.

In chess and in many games an illegal move and pressing your clock before you make your move is automatic losses. I have no problems at all for this type of rules but they slow down the game, claiming and having laws that are equity based rather than punishment based is a tradeoff you make for a faster game.
Nov. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please re-read Alan post its well explained. If playing one guard or one suit before the other is sensible or could win on certain layout we rule against claimer, otherwise we don't assume the player would take an irrationnal line.

Ex In NT, declarer claim 9 remaining tricks with

AKQJT
AKQT
—-
—-

Its unfair to rule that he would run the H before the S and lose the T and some minors tricks, if claiming didnt exist and saving time wasnt an issue 99.99% of players would run the first.
Nov. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also from Terence…

Ius summum saepe summa est malitia.
Extreme law is often extreme injustice.
Nov. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not only north can use 2Nt for scrambling but but if you correct 3C to 3D partner will understand that you are 63 in the reds.
Nov. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At first glance switching look like an improvement since 3S cue with a non-serious hand can be seen as a info leaked, its a useless cuebid when the partner would signoff over a non-serious bid.

However with 3Nt non-serious I have been able to stop in 3Nt a fair amount of time when my partner shape is knowned or close to it.


1S-2C-2H-2S-2NT (5422,5431 stiff K) if later opener is make a non serious NT and responder got good minors cards its not crazy to think that responder could decide that 3Nt is a better spot than 4S.
Nov. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play that 3S is mixed raise and that what I would bid here.

IMO using 3S for mixed raise and 2NT/3C for the super rare crappy raise is superior because of the huge frequency difference between the 2 type of hands.
Nov. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree 100% with Alan.

“He's not unblocking any suit.
If he has A / A / AKQJ are you assuming he would play the ♣'s first?
To his mind, that's what he has!”


its mistake to compare

A-A-A-AQJ to A-A-A-AKQ what you need to compare is what is the consequence of a bad claims vs what would happen if claiming didnt exist on the long run.

The goal of a the claim ruling is to restore equity not to punish all mistakes. Restoring equity is IMO about finding a balance of expected outcome on this particular deal and redress some of the consequences of bad claims that wont be caught on other deals.


A,A,AK,AQJ on dummy always deserve 6 tricks even if declarer is covinced think the clubs are good. Same for a case where we assume that everybody know there is no left and hes got void,A,A,AQJT

Claiming is a way to save time for everybody, if claiming didnt exist and declarer got no incentive to speed up the game 99.99% of declarer (even those who are convinced the clubs are good) would just routinely use no-brainer technique to reach dummy via the minors and play clubs before releasing the major aces. So on many cases ruling losing 2 tricks is a distortion of equity and punish too harshly declarers that want to speed up the game for everybody.

In op case I would assume that its possible for declarer to think that if there is left than cashing A before the could be sensible, but if we assume that declarer know for sure that there is no S left than playing A before playing the clubs is close enough to be irrationnal (again assuming that we are in a setting where claiming didnt exist).
Nov. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What i recommend is that

1Nt-2C-2D-3H= smolen 5S+4H or 5S+5H. (Weissberger 3D for 55 both majors is costly since 3D natural is a very good bid)

over 3H…

??
3S= 2254/2245 or 32??/23?? with all the pts in the minors willing to play 3NT vs 55??
3NT= 23?? responder is expected to correct to 4H with 55??
4Y+ = show 3S.

3S/3NT can be inverted but 3S for the less frequent hand make sense.

——————
If you like to alert often or if you play precison/polish clubs you can play

1D-1H-1S as showing clubs (1D-1H-2C is showing 4S+5D)

The idea is that there is 5D+5C,5D+4C,4D+5C but only one 4S+5D so it make sense that 1S for clubs (with 1NT asking for the longuest minor) and 2C for 5diamonds+4S will give more precision.
Nov. 21
Benoit Lessard edited this comment Nov. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you play nl michaels

4m = m+
4=good 4 or minors hands with void
5=11 tricks
6=12 tricks.

You have 5 and 6 (even 4) available to treat hands with voids or for hands where the Q or xxx support is worth one tricks. Im not sure you should always show your void if you have it.
Nov. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here it make sense to play that X or the 2S cuebid may have a full fit but in standard if you have a fit you raise.

Those who don't bid 4H also lose some equity when they wont compete to 3H with lighter values or if they play a very wide range for 3H they will lose equity when advancer will missguess.

Bottom line is if your range for the 3H bid is too wide or too conservative you lose equity on multiple front not just when you miss makeable game.

Imo our hand doesnt fit in the standard 3H range and its not that close.
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“bris de tempo”

But the in the laws its “variation de tempo”
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In french what I do here is something along the line of “do you agree there is a small BIT here ?” if they agree than we keep playing if they don't than I say lets call the director to protect everybody.

Calling the director is indeed a way to protect everybody since if I hae the tendency to cry wolf by calling for a BIT too often and the opps disagree, director is able to see that if the hand is not a borderline hand and that an hesitation is unlikely than he might decide that I cry wolf too often.

Agreeing on the BIT or calling the director before the hand is played is important, if players call on the director only after seeing dummy hand or when they see declarer hand than they cannot be caught for crying wolf too often.
Nov. 20
Benoit Lessard edited this comment Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Without reconsideration is exactly like without pause for tought as far as I am concerned so the new wording is just stylistic.
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't like any scheme where the re-Xfer isnt GF. With inv you go via 2C-2red-2S anyway and if opener is max with only 2S he bid 2Nt & you can sometimes bail out in 3m. Its quite rare that 3m makes and 2M doesnt when responder is invitationnal but even when does that happen it doesnt compensate for the case where 2S makes and 3S/3m fail.

So unless your 5S+6m being able to stop in 3m is not only pointless its costly compared to simply go via 2C-2red-2S.


With INV you can bid 2S as a range ask.
1NT-2D-2H-2S-??

2NT= min no fit
3C = fit any strenght
rest = max no fit.

that way still allow you to bail out in 3m when opener is min with only 2H and sometimes opener can reevaluate with a big minor fit and reach 3Nt so you lose nothing.

So there is no reasons whatsoever to play the retransfer as INV+ instead of GF.

If you play a wide range NT I guess there is some value in showing your 2nd suit to help partner reeavalute but at the same time you play a 3 level instead of a usually very safe 2S contract.
Nov. 20
Benoit Lessard edited this comment Nov. 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 238 239 240 241
.

Bottom Home Top