Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Bill March
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There was no misunderstanding - the double by agreement was meant and taken as take out of clubs, but was not alerted(as it should have been in EBU).
After 4H was passed out and went 2 off this hand claimed that they would have doubled if told the double was takeout of clubs.
They got a partial adjustment and we were told that if we wanted to appeal we had 20 mins to put down a £30 deposit with a warning that we’d lose a VP if it was deemed frivolous ! - I wasn’t happy.
Nov. 17, 2019
Bill March edited this comment Nov. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ok, if I put in 3 I should have put in 4.
Nov. 17, 2019
Bill March edited this comment Nov. 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Shows exactly 4(bid to appropriate level with 5)
Nov. 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yet again! - maybe the practical answer is that partner had a 3S bid on the first round and miss sorted their hand or forgot their agreements.
Nov. 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Though Michael Byrne’s article was good he did not have the space (or perhaps the inclination) to fully explore this area.
If you’re going to open 1C with 4144 to ‘find all your fits’ then you need to consider the following (in increasing order of importance)
1) 1C pass 1H pass 1S no longer shows 5 plus clubs.
2) If you do want to find all fits then you need to bid ‘up the line’ - so if partner bids 1D then do you raise and maybe miss a spade fit or bid 1S then have a later problem showing a weak 4144 as opposed to a stronger 4135 etc.
3) 1C (1S) double pass - many play that the double says nothing about diamonds so is 2D now a reverse ?? If not then what do you do with extra values with 5C/4D?, there’s a whole can of worms here.
Nov. 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don’t find option 1 ridiculous - KQ AKQJxxxx KQJ void , I see no merit in pass .
Oct. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ambrose - you seem to be a few years behind the times, it’s now de rigueur to take offence on behalf of others.
Oct. 25, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dante would have known where to put those who reveal film and book endings.
Oct. 22, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
SA then CJ
Oct. 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Possible can of worms re the ‘honesty’ of such descriptions, it could take a long long time to verify.
Oct. 20, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As you can see from the limited responses so far there is no proven ‘optimal’ solution - having 2 majors to worry about and lack of space gives you too much to do.
I’ve been playing this convention for a long time but it doesn’t come up often enough to have seen what’s most effective - I think your own suggested scheme is reasonable but may suffer from the old problem of ‘optional’ doubles over preempt, you need clear rules regarding what’s needed to double and to leave it in.
Oct. 16, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can someone check my maths! - assuming rho will always play a quack from QJX then what are the odds for the intrafinesse compared to the 3/3 split, it looks close to me.
Oct. 14, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Academic I know but does declarer have some alternate way to show an unbalanced raise to 2H with 4 hearts?
Oct. 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The real problem is that whatever the regulations are you will have many players (of all standards) who wont(for whatever reason ) adhere to them.
So , in order to ‘protect’ yourself you have to slow the game down by asking about everything unless you want to risk a ‘just bridge’ ruling.
Oct. 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I’m not consistent on this ,I would let this go most of the time but depending on who the declarer is might not.
Oct. 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nigel - though I’m no expert on LTC I’d always believed that the starting point for opening the bidding in the original ‘system’ was a 7 loser hand.
Oct. 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you’d looked at the last USBF trials then you’d have seen that wasn’t a minimum.
Oct. 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1C has more appeal if not playing Walsh.
Oct. 9, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Over the years I’ve felt that the best ‘rule’ is ‘don’t bid 5 over 5’. There’s been a lot of criticism over South’s pass of 5H(most of which I agree with) but whether it was forcing or not the 5S by North was just inexplicable, transforming the absurd 5H bid into a master stroke.
Oct. 4, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is 4S not an option? I’d certainly consider it.
Oct. 3, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top