Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Bill March
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hopefully partner wont sign off slowly!
March 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem as I see it (which few in this thread have addressed) is that there are players with a compulsion to open a ‘strong’ NT on 14(and sometimes 13) HCP hands that have no obvious ‘upgrading’ features at all - it doesn’t matter that their partners bid ethically,the opponents are still at a disadvantage.
March 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
‘ For you these people are the same ‘ - no they’re not,you’ve simply assumed that. If you can’t see the danger in this policy then I’m afraid I can’t explain it.
March 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So ,for those who think it’s fine for the ACBL to ‘go it’s own way’ - why such a fuss about federations that decide to go their own way re how they treat those that have broken rules?
March 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I’ve known pairs (without a convention card) who lead low from a doubleton yet describe their methods as 2nd and 4th as that’s what a literal interpretation would imply!
March 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My worry here was that partner would expect 2S from them to be forcing - I didn’t want to end up bidding 3C and finding their shape was 4432 which seems nowadays to be a compulsory double.
Feb. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the auction went 1NT 3NT 4NT you wouldn’t assume partner had a really good maximum for their opener - the question is where do you draw the line ?
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Several years ago the Bridgeworld had a comment about when in practise the percentage action was to assume that partner had misbid rather than trying to come up with logical reasons for there seemingly ‘impossible’ sequence. For me this is clearly in that category.
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Though I play 2NT as the minors(typically 46) I don’t regard it as obvious at all, swapping a plus for a minus when partner has some bad 3532 - I find the level of support for 3D astonishing.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Clearly no one has a tinge of regret that after 1m 1S 2S that 2NT can no longer be the final contract!
Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I’ve also had a disaster defending 2Dx after doubling with a very strong 3316 shape - partner had 5 diamonds but it wasn’t enough.
Feb. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In a precision context there is no reason to value the K more in Diamonds when the Spade bid has said nothing about Diamonds.
Feb. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Play 1NT forcing which has its own minuses of course.
Feb. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I envision a new word in the OED next year!
Feb. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The situation I’m envisioning is the 3nt bidder having say xx in Spades and AKxxxxx in a minor and distinguishing between partner having Ax or XX in spades.
Jan. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the situation where 3NT denies a spade stop it seemed to me that either pass or double should systemically also deny a spade stop to stop partner from being tempted to bid 4NT.
Jan. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Though I think S should have done more this has nothing to do with match points - the problem is the modern trend to get in over a ‘strong’ NT with shape irrespective of values with both partners assuming that game won’t normally make.
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Easier if you’re playing the hated Cappelletti.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard - you’ve lost me ,which footnote ?
Jan. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Splitting hairs I know but the fact that the 1S rebid can’t be balanced does not in itself mean they are playing ‘unbalanced diamond’.
Jan. 9
.

Bottom Home Top