Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 112 113 114 115
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I am suggesting exactly that, which would be a normal thing to say if people had an informal custom of calling all point cards “queens”.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, not only is it you who should avoid complex bidding methods, but I would also suggest counting your cards more carefully when you take your hand out of the board. Your auction is quite impossible for a correct deal as the 3 bid shows 14 cards (all the hearts and the A). In Kersey's methods the correct full auction is:

2(1) - 3(2) - Dbl(3) - Pass(4)
Pass(5) - Rdbl(6) - Pass(7) - 3(8)
Pass(9) - Dbl(10) - 4NT(11) - 6(12)
All Pass

(1) I have all the spades and not both the A and K
(2) I have the A through the 3 but not both the 2 and A
(3) I have one but not both of the 2 and A
(4) I have neither the 2 nor the A
(5) I do not have the 2
(6) I do not have the A
(7) I have the A (but, remember, not the 2)
(8) I do not have both the K and Q
(9) I also do not have both the K and Q
(10) I also do not have both the K and Q
(11) I have K through 2 but not both A and K
(12) I have A through 3

Yes, the clubs are known before the final 6 bid, but it is prescribed anyway. Note that the location of the 2 is known because three of the four players have denied holding it. There is no bid to show the 2 because you always know where it is after you know where 51 cards are. There are bids to show the other clubs, because you won't always already know where they are. (In fact, you will only already know where all the clubs are before any club cards are shown by he auction when all the clubs are in one hand.)
Sept. 22
Christopher Monsour edited this comment Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I assume the 4M/6m don't fall into NT buckets. Those are pretty important, too.
Sept. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I deal with Suction over a strong club (not precisely your situation), I tend to use whatever defense I am using to transfer overcalls. The reason is that LHO needs support for the potential one-suiter in order to bounce the auction. Thus, as responder, if I have to pass and act later when I have length in that one suit, that's OK–the auction will still be low. But when I am short in the suit, there may be a skip bid about to happen on my left, so I need to describe my hand NOW.
Sept. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Possibly the original poster could solve this problem by opening those canape hands 1M if they were in the 16-18 range…. A 1 negative is certainly a lot more palatable opposite a 1 opening that is much less frequent than in typical Precision, since then the 1 response will happen less often and its range will be narrower. For example, if 1 showed 19+ with inconvenient shapes, or 17+ with convenient shapes.
Sept. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That depends on your system. If 2 doesn't have the same meaning in competition, then you wouldn't expect opener's 2NT rebid to have the same meaning over 2nd hand interference. And if your 2 rebid is normally some sort of balanced hand, you wouldn't be likely to forget that 2NT needs a different meaning after 4th hand interference.
Sept. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you weren't so enthralled with references to Uranus, you might have noticed the Sun shining on Don Kersey's Bridge World article http://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/esoterica/perfect.html , based on a 1976 IEEE note, which describes the algorithm by which all players can show their hands completely and the auction ends in 6. Your suggestion that one would need to memorize all possible auctions is a red herring–the algorithm one needs to memorize in order to leverage auctions to show all four hands is fully described in that short note.

The notion that you need to memorize all possible auctions shows a fundamental misconception of how any useful bidding system works, whether meant for two players or for four players. No one memorizes all possible sequences. They memorize rules, which may include memorizing a small number of special sequences, but that's it. Of course, the number of auctions and the complexity of the algorithm are NOT necessarily related. The algorithm in Kersey's note is far simpler than most people's bidding systems, but it encodes many orders of magnitude more auctions.

Also, note that the algorithm is also far more important than the number of auctions. Knowing that the number of auctions is more than the number of deals only tells you that someone who can see all four hands could have the auction that encodes that particular deal. The algorithm shows that it can be done by four people each of whom can only see his own hand, which is a much stronger claim!
Sept. 21
Christopher Monsour edited this comment Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(a) That requires all four players to cooperate because a distinct auction consists of the calls by both sides.
(b) It requires all four players to cooperate because you need to know whether your finesses are working.
© You will usually need to make an insufficient bid at the end of the auction, if you actually want to declare the right contract, since the auction will likely be higher by that point.
Sept. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, I don't think your suggested meaning can be the meaning, for quite a few reasons. First of all, “double” isn't a bid. Second, a phrase or clause in parentheses is generally taken to be explanatory, not restrictive; it's just reminding folks that passes, doubles, and redoubles are not bids. Finally, it's one thing to make sense of a sentence by assuming that a word (“bid”) is being used in an incorrect but somewhat common way (to mean “call”); it's specious to construe the sentence as though “bid” were being used in a very rare incorrect way (to mean any call but pass–pretty much the only way you can conclude the previous was double when a pass has followed it!), especially when this isn't even possible to square with the explanatory phrase in parentheses which, if meant in an explanatory way directly contradicts the strange construal, and if meant in a restrictive way would need to be phrased different, given the construal–i.e., it would have read “other than double or redouble”.

Obviously the correct phrasing is “…if the last call other than pass was a bid by the opponents”. I am fairly sure that is what Kit meant to write. I am quite sure it is not the meaning of the words he actually wrote.
Sept. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Note that the following statement from the quote from the book is false: “Double is legal if the previous bid (other than pass, double, or redouble) was by the opponents.” If this were true, I would be able to double after One Heart by LHO, Double by partner, and Pass on my right.
Sept. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or maybe that should just be Brava?
Sept. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or, for bots, Bridgava?
Sept. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would not play 2 in competition as forcing one round, but if I did I would have opener's 2NT be non-forcing. Which suit do you want responder starting with with a 3=3=4=3 11 count in competition?

Outside of competition, I think it's useful for opener's 2 rebid over an inverted 2 to show a balanced hand with 4+ diamonds and for his 2NT and 3NT rebids to show min and max balanced hands with 3- diamonds.
Sept. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One thing to keep in mind about multi is that failing to raise the level isn't as helpful as it is opposite a natural preempt. Opposite a natural 2, pass puts all the pressure on LHO. After a 2 response to 2, both opponents still have a bite at the apple (and in particular RHO may still be hoping to some in with w two-level takeout double). Thus, I suspect when you can raise the level you should do so more aggressively than opposite the natural opening.
Sept. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You still play the lottery of total tricks?
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What would you do with KQx K xxx AKQxxx after 2-(3)-, where 3 is 7-13, 6+ diamonds?
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do you ever run into opponents who use a defense to 2 that involves relatively weak 3 and 3 overcalls (e.g., 7-13), specifically to make the multi's ambiguity cause you pain? Do you have any special agreements to deal with, e.g., a 3 overcall that is natural and light?
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I should add: whereas he could have just doubled a transfer to show a strong hand.
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Alan: And then the genie complains that you've been granted three wishes and still haven't produced any J—.
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And with 2-2-5-4? Or did you always open 1 with that?
Sept. 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 112 113 114 115
.

Bottom Home Top