Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Brian Davies
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This would have been useful information to have posted initially as voters will assume a penalty double in the absence of any indications to the contrary.

Under your scheme, East will more frequently be unable to stand the double and may have as much as six or seven HCPs. Now bidding becomes more attractive.

If East expects a full value penalty double he will only run if near broke (up to say 4 HCPs) and there is little prospect of game.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Three bidding polls running with a double void. Where do you guys play?
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Deleted - nonsense
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are you leading on that assumption? Or making the natural club lead?
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with you David. My post was in response to OP, not you (your post was not there when I composed mine).

OP invites us to “Bid 7♥ if you would have bid 4♠ directly rather than bid 3♥.
Bid 7NT if you would not have passed 4♠, but rather would have explored for slam.”

I was trying to figure out what to bid if the whole auction up to this point is b#@~%cks.

:)
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What do I bid if I would have opened 1 at my first turn and none of my subsequent bids make any sense?
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray. We use a 4-point range 1NT rebid. Our structure is:
1NT 12-14
1NT rebid 15-18
2NT rebid 19-20
Multi 2, then 2NT 21-22
2 then 2NT 23-24

Easy! We even have a 2NT opening available to show 5-5 in the minors!
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Frances: if tidying up, my personal opinion is that the definition if “balanced” is fine but I am much less keen on the definition of “semi-balanced” since it includes 7222 but excludes 4441.

I think that the definition used for “a natural 1NT opener” is a good definition of “balanced + semi-balanced”.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner holds a fistful of clubs, so will pass 2.

But partner would prefer that we pass 2.
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Passing looks timid - particularly at IMPs. I expect partner to have 16+ HCPs or 15 and a good lead. Opps probably have a nine-card heart fit (no penalty pass), so we seem to have a fit in one of the other suits.

Even 4 on a Moysian might be a good spot.
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why not reduce the up-front investment in a copier and simply buy a stock of blank convention cards and two pens.

I'll leave you to calculate how much you want to charge for buying the blank card and for pen rental.
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wouldn't have over-called on the first round.
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I presume that partner has promised a four-card major for this sequence?
March 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“See the discussion What is a ‘convention’? and its outcome.
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/what-is-a-convention/”

Since the majority vote was for: “Convention is any agreement, artificial or natural”, I think that we need to be picking three more fundamental choices. So before we pick Stayman & Transfers (yes - they are separate), we might want select a No Trump range!

And maybe the agreement that a change of suit is forcing?

The selection of a carding convention might also be important!
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael Angelo Ravera: I can't comment on the EBU's Orange Book, since it is many years since that document was superseded.

The Blue book - 4 B 1 (b) has “…a pass or bid must be alerted if it is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning.”

In my opinion, a systematic agreement to over-call 1NT routinely without a stop would definitely be an unexpected meaning and definitely alertable.
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I open 12-14 throughout. I guess that under Christopher's scheme I would announce as weak in first or second chair but strong in third! :)
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Transfers are off if there is further competition.
March 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can make the case that NS did not agree that 3 on this auction is a splinter. But the convention card implies that they have agreed splinters and does not mention that splinters do not apply in this auction so it seems more plausible that they did indeed have an agreement, which North forgot or confused.

In any case, it seems equally clear that they did not have an agreement that 3 is natural, so there should have been an alert. Certainly in England the guidance it pretty clear in this area - you should alert even if you cannot explain the meaning of partner's call (Blue Book 4A4).

I am not sure what the ACBL regulations specify in this area, but what is clear is that under South's understanding of the bid an alert is required, but no alert was given by North. It follows from this that South has UI that North is interpreting the bid differently from the meaning intended by South.

The lack of alert was UI, irrespective of whether it is deemed to be a “failure”!
March 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They missed getting a ruling in their favour.

N/S took improper advantage of UI to allow them to retrieve a bidding misunderstanding. It is debatable whether the “impossible top” arises from the litigation or the bidding misunderstanding.
March 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.

Bottom Home Top