Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Benoit Lessard
1 2 3 4 ... 208 209 210 211
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Standard methods are rather lame imo.

What i like to play is

1NT-2C-2M–??

3C= fit with opener major (could be inv, could be fit+5m or fit & bal)
3D= 5D+4OM
3H= 5C+4OM & low short
3S= 5C+4OM & high shortness.

Its much better to play 3C showing fit than 3 in the other major. Its also poor when you bid 3m and you dont know wich major responder got.


Strong dislike for 3m as non forcing unless you are a passed hand.
4 hours ago
Benoit Lessard edited this comment 4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think its the opposite its better to have unclear INV and see opener response to them.

1C-1H
2C-??

here you have 6H+3C INV wich INV do you choose ?
If you pick H inv opener may pass because hes short in H.
If you choose a club in you may miss 4H.

However if you multi inv with 2D and see opener refuse a H inv by bidding 2H you can correct to 3C.

Again fairly well explained on http://www.rpbridge.net/5m81.htm
14 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the balancing seat i think its normal to play a ELC style especially over a preempt. Assuming 3C showed values, 3D is 4H+6D or some 1363 with good but can be just slightly better than a minimum. Having no AKQ in D and only one stopper make 3NT an underdog proposition especially in MP. So i think pasign 3D is clear.

If 3C didnt showed values than i can understand 3Nt but ill blame the methods instead.

Should opener pull ? yes his diamonds need too much to run.
March 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
after a lead vs east 2 contract north overtake will also show the jack since hes cannot have a singleton. However im wondering in cases where north could have AJ or stiff A what spot should he return ?

I think I prefer low = singleton and middle or high the J but its something worth discussing.
March 25
Benoit Lessard edited this comment March 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 can also go down with a trump promotion.
March 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree it depend what is meant by weakish, if its a pair that do not play or may screw up lebensohl than 2S got my vote.
March 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Its a close call but I really want a lead vs 3NT.

All too often my partner lead a club in spot like this.
March 23
Benoit Lessard edited this comment March 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree no reason to bid 3NT with a prime hand and a club fit.
March 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To kick the ace of clubs you need partner with Qx and opener with only 4 cards so IMO a 1444 is the only shape. So if you want to have a very tiny chances to kill the you need to play low club not the K.
March 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2C is a pitfall here, its ok to bid 2C with soft values like KQxxxx so that if partner pass 2C with a singleton we might not belong in 4S, here however our hand is good vs club shortness so bidding the more encouraging 2S is the way to go.

Later i would simply treat my hand like a

3415
March 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit, what i meant is that if you psych 2C or if you sometimes bid 2 clubs on a wide range of fragment shape (4423, 5413,4333) I agree that its like 4 card major opening in 3rd seat and its part of the general bridge knowledge and the bid got a natural component since clubs may be your best fit.

However if you routinely agree that with many 4440 (+1) its better to bid 2C and use the opps to scramble to your best spot than maybe it deserve an alert.
March 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The following are not considered cue-bids

1♣(strong artificial and forcing)
-2♣ Clubs, any other meaning requires an
Alert
.
if (1C)-2C isnt a cuebid why would

(1C)–1M–(P)–2C be a cuebid ?
March 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/play/AlertProcedures.pdf

Most cuebids are not Alertable. However, any cuebid which conveys a very unusual or unexpected meaning still requires an Alert.

Example

1♦-2♦
If the 2♦ bid shows the majors (Michaels), clubs and spades (top/bottom) or some other two-suiter (not including diamonds), no
Alert is required.

I personally play my michaels as S+one another suit and I always alert and if im on the other side I should always ask (but i dont).

I don't think tranfers is unusual compared to top and other michals, but IMO we should always alert the xfer and always ask the meaning of a cue if you dont know the meaning.
March 19
Benoit Lessard edited this comment March 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since 3H just look easier to make than defeating 3D for me pass isnt LA, of course its would have been better to first make a bidding poll and later discuss the case.

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-4lmmxnjgmz/
March 18
Benoit Lessard edited this comment March 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David its my view and my vote for this case that a slow 4D can mean too many things, so overall I dont think a BIT 4D suggest one LA rather than another.

However in some others cases I play the %, as a club level director I know that for many club level players a slow low level bid = extras but a slow high level double or balancing bid = on the lower border. Im pretty confident about this bias however i know my players quite well its different when you don't know the players.

I was also replying to “It's hard to prove that 4♠ was motivated by hesitation to meet the letter of the Law. But if you think about this hand in an MP setting you might find some answers.” For me the MP setting make it more likely that the BIT or 4D was because the hand is minimum wich suggest 4NT rather than 4S.
March 18
Benoit Lessard edited this comment March 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like to have special agreements for bids like 5S. Over it opps can bid a 30% slam and still make a profit. So you have to be ready for the fairly frequent slam that they are going to bid. Similar for (1H)–3C–(3H)–4C where opps can bid 4H despite being a under 40% contract.

Either preemptor is out of the game in wich case responder is 100% responsible of the follow up (unless preemptor can gamble a lighnter) what is going to happen after, if this is the case than for sure 5S followed by 6S is a serious blunder. Its much better to pass and bid 6S over their unforced 6C than to put pressure on them adn bid 6S over their forced could be borderline slam. Remember over your 5S they have great odds for bidding a vul slam rather than settling for +300/500.

I like to play a style where NV vs vul an advance over a preempt doesnt shut up preemptor, it ask for his input since i believe that where the big wins are.

Here im sure NS didnt have this style so i vote 50%-50%

5S followed by 6S is a quasi-nullo strategy not doubling is inertia at his finest.
March 17
Benoit Lessard edited this comment March 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A slow 4D in MP is more likely to suggest a minimum hand than the same slow 4D in IMPs.

You can stetch to aim at 4D-1 in MP but not in imps. Also if I stretch to bid 4D in Imps there is a good chance ill endup playing game so stretching in MP look safer & more frequent.
March 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff you are overthinking the first part IMO,

A quick look at demonstrate synonym

establish, prove, show, substantiate,validate,clarify, elucidate, explicate, expound, get across, illuminate, illustrate, interpret, simplify etc..

All these meaning are stronger than simply “to suggest”. So for me its clear that you need more “work” to demonstrate than to simply suggest. For bridge im pretty sure we all agree that the intended meaning is close to illustrate or to explain rather than to prove or to validate.

Now its my turn to overthink the 2nd part..
“Could suggest” may look like a redundancy since both “could” and “suggest” implies possibilities however if we remove “could” we get something like

“partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that has demonstrably been suggested over another one by the extraneous information.”

This look like its only partner judgement or only the thinking at the current time that matter.

If its “partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.” For me this implies that my peers could later demonstrate or not if my bid was suggested by extra information. So for me the could mean that its not what i think now that matter the most but rather what my peers will later think of my chosen bid.

Right after this you get the law that explain that logical alternative definition is based on your peers judgment.
March 17
Benoit Lessard edited this comment March 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
demonstrably = you able to show (in french demontrer) or your able to proove. “Demontrer un theorem” = explain or proove a theorem.

“could demonstrably have been suggested” is asking for higher requirement than simply “that 4S was suggested over 4NT”.

“Demonstrably” is asking for a logical reasonning behind the plausibility of a bid rather than for a simple opinion.
March 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do innocent people get surronded by 3 feet of snow a 17th of march ?

Most of Quebec province got 35cm to 75 cm in 2 days and in some places its not over. City of Montreal got 40 cm. We sure feel we've sinned to deserved this.

A first snow success
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfDZixZFzms

our latest last snow success
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUa1VwXt33U
March 17
1 2 3 4 ... 208 209 210 211
.

Bottom Home Top