Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Bill Segraves
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 32 33 34 35
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
+1 for emphasizing the memory load issues here. IMO, it's worth considering whether methods are similar when 3NT is balancing and whether our side uses a completely different scheme or just a slightly modified scheme after 2 - 2 - 3NT, if you play that balanced, or the even rarer post-Birthright jump. All rare, and the more similar they are, the easier it is to keep track of it.
6 hours ago
Bill Segraves edited this comment 4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Most of us solve this 1♦-1♥, 1♠ problem by using XYZ.”

I'm missing something. How does using XYZ specifically solve problem B?
12 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fit-showing unless otherwise defined (including reverse Flannery after their 1 overcall, Bergen-ish 1-under mixed raises when there's not another way to show mixed, and to play when in game).
13 hours ago
Bill Segraves edited this comment 12 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I’m not seeing how partner led from Jack fifth when there are only three outstanding club spots.
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5 cards to the J, 4 in dummy, 3 with East, and the AK to be accounted for. That’s 14.
Feb. 23
Bill Segraves edited this comment Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“not if s/he led from J-5th.”

If partner led from Jxxxx, wouldn't that make for at least 14 clubs?
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Practitioners are divided in terms of how they take advantage of the extra potential meanings of 2 directly over 1NT or after 2 relay to 2. See https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/checkback-auction-when-playing-reverse-flannery-by-responder/ .

After 1NT, we happen to play 2 as GF, but this would have been a nice hand to have been playing the “too weak” version *if* pard indulged by rebidding 1NT. Of course, the real reason for RFR is not to solve problems after 1NT rebids (those are already in decent shape), but after 2m rebids.

PS - it's almost always (and was here) combined with the agreement that the jump to 2 would show 5 spades and 4-5 hearts with invitational values, so those are usually also excluded from 2 rebids.
Feb. 23
Bill Segraves edited this comment Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For the 1 bidders, what are you going to do over 1NT, 2 or 2, when bidding 2 will now be forcing (since RFR is meant to cover your 5 spade 4+ heart hands)?
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
More like 5-9 normally. Works very well.
Feb. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had looked pretty hard before I asked, but encouraged by your post, Oren, I gave it another run with a variety of other search terms. http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/1s-or-2c-which-one-is-more-common-in-experts/

Thanks!
Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partnership agreement. But I would not wish to have the agreement that it was non-forcing. One of my partnership meta-agreements is that effective game and slam bidding gets priority over improvement of partscores.
Feb. 19
Bill Segraves edited this comment Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In practice, we have not found either to be problematic without KI, but I am particularly curious as to what people see as the potential problem with Gazzilli after 1 - 1.
Feb. 19
Bill Segraves edited this comment Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting. I think of 1 - 1 as a very nice start. Pard will next define their hand with 1NT, 2 Gazzilli, some other bid limited by non-Gazzilli, or some rarer well-defined conventional rebids. And I think of this as perhaps the easiest of Gazzilli starts, as 2 will always be real clubs if not strong and artificial.
Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Michael Rosenberg has argued persuasively that it's best to respond 1♠, but if I remember the details of his scheme correctly, it required some nuanced agreements.”

If anyone knows a source for those arguments and agreements, please post it, thank you!
Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The problem with 1♠ first on GF hands is the dreaded 2 bid.”

If you mean after a 1 opener, then this can be solved by the sub-invitational initial 2 response, making the 2 rebid forcing, per Biddle and Caprera comments at https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/1h-2s-to-show-spades-and-a-minor/.
Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wouldn't 5 have been pretty strongly suggestive of slam?
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good rules will do a lot to prevent the all-to-common forcing pass different-page disasters, but on an auction such as this one, how to have a *partnership* decision as to whether to pass 6 out, double it, or bid on to 6?

How often will we want to make an ostensibly strong bid such as 4, raise it to the 5-level vulnerable, and then let them play at the 6-level undoubled?
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For Frances and those who “liked”:

How much is 4 bidder counting on from partner when bidding to make?

About how many losers is 4?

What should passed partner have to consider putting 4 bidder in slam?
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It wouldn’t necessarily be my first choice, but per the booklet, the limit jump raise is allowed on three card support.
Feb. 17
Bill Segraves edited this comment Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is there a hand that could plausibly pass after (1) 1 (1) X (P) if X is a Rosenkranz or Reverse Rosenkranz double promising 3 card support and 1 showed at least five?
Feb. 16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 32 33 34 35
.

Bottom Home Top