Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Bob Okker
1 2 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No bet, but you're close. We did predict 99%, which appears to be an underbid.

This was a teaching environment on BBO. The auction started as shown above (the rest of the auction is immaterial) and afterwards, a student asked about whether the 2 overcall was forcing.

Teacher: “I think we should all play 2 as at least one round forcing.”

Students then asked for clarification: “Did u say 2 bid is 1 round forcing. That can't be standard.”

Teacher: “Okay, so here’s what I will say, it’s very normal to play overcalls as forcing, at least one round. Okay? I’m going to toss that out there. . . .”

Then later,

Teacher: “The majority play it forcing.”

We were curious about just what sort of “majority” percentage would agree with that.

*** Apologies to the cognoscenti for the question.

*** Names will not be revealed. No need for it.
Nov. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You would think so wouldn't you?

The opening bidder questioned his partner about his 2NT (natural invite) response.

Responder, a “BBO Expert,” replied with an exasperated, “sigh, I suppose I have to spell it out, if ur max and have 1 intermediate 3n is making, anyways…next.”
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The “fake news” post-mortems could be disseminated via the internet and accessed with cell phones.

I like it!
Aug. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If partner thinks it's a weak jump-shift, introduce her to checkers.
June 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not in the least.
The BBO “expert” in the room–teaching–stated the following:

“East’s 4 indicates he is willing to sacrifice vul vs. not. Therefore, South knows they likely have game. At an “expert” table, sitting South, I would bid 5 all day long.”

A couple of us were curious just how nuts that statement really was.
May 30
Bob Okker edited this comment May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with calling them “control bids,” but also understand the original–and still common–name of “cue bid.”
At some point Rubens' nomenclature may become universal. Until then we live with both.
May 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. Control. agreed. Not 5-5 in the blacks, as I believe 4 would be “shaping out.”
2. Lacking agreements to the contrary, 2. Though I also play 2NT as promising 6+ here.
3. Pass. Regretting my choice (which I would not choose) of 3 . . . why add to the problem?
May 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve,
What if you do not have 2-way NMF or XYNT available? All you play is vanilla NMF.
April 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can think of a one word reply to this . . . but will refrain.
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1419. Having opened one of a major with 5-3-3-2 or 4=5=2=2, opener may pass a semiforcing one-notrump response with a hand deemed no stronger than . . .
A. 12 high-card points
B. 13 high-card points
C. 14 high-card points

System addition: Having opened one of a major with 5-3-3-2 or 4=5=2=2, opener may pass a semiforcing one-notrump response only with a hand deemed no stronger than 12 high-card points.
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree–“Just.” And I, too, steer clear of 2 when others eagerly employ it.

Unfortunately, that wasn't the problem presented to me, which I chose to pass on to BW.

3NT seems a viable option.
March 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 with 5+.
If partner has a major, she bids it. If I have support for the major, I support.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No.
If partner bids 2NT I'll show delayed support for s. Partner should be able to figure out my 4243 (or possibly 4144) shape.

Our methods specifically deny a 5th in this auction, with 2 not promising extras.
Jan. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tootsie Pop!
Jan. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If playing “natural responding methods,” with the requirement that a positive suit response includes say, 2 of the top 3 honors, then 2 is understandable.

I agree that s are the agreed suit. With s, a simple 3 rebid would seem to be the simplest way to convey that message.

The question is, with s as trump, and opposite a void, do we show one keycard with 5? Or, with our undisclosed length and the void, do we dare try something else?

Does 6 convey that message?
Oct. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South failed to bid KeyCard = Mistake
North bid KeyCard and did not follow thru with 5NT = Mistake

East and West = No Mistakes
Aug. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's where I was going, yes . . . and the reason for this poll.

Our auction proceeded 1 - 1 - 1 - 2 (artificial GF), then 3NT by opener. Not Fast-Arrival but showing “extras” by opener. Unsure of how to proceed, I jumped to 6, and we languished in a small slam. It was only afterwards that 4NT (vanilla Blackwood) dawned on me. Thanks!
July 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, Phillip.
I edited the OP to reflect that jump-shifts are weak while you were writing this.
July 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ellis, so you are saying:
1) 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 3NT shows 18-19.
2) 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 2NT shows a minimum. Presumably 12-14.

What about:
3) 1 - 1 - 2NT? How does this differ from no.1 above?
4) How do we address the unbalanced “gap”? The 15-17 range?
July 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does 2 indicate extras?

If not, why not?
July 6, 2016
1 2 3
.

Bottom Home Top