Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Craig Zastera
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 180 181 182 183
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In standard methods (e.g. “Bridge World Standard”) where a new suit advance is non-forcing (e.g. 2 in OP auction), the jump shift advances (e.g. 3 in OP auction) are needed as NATURAL and INVITATIONAL. Stronger hands have to start with a cue-bid (which, therefore, does not promise support for overcaller's suit).
Here is the relevent passage from the Bridge World Standard system notes:
   "After our simple overcall of a one-bid:
(a) A new-suit bid by an unpassed advancer is natural
and nonforcing, constructive if an advance of
a two-level overcall.
(Then: a cue-bid by intervenor is artificial
and neither shows nor denies a primary fit for
advancer's suit.)

A new-suit jump is invitational.

(b) A cue-bid may be either a strong raise or a
prelude to a forcing bid in a new suit
(but a passed-hand cue-bid guarantees a fit
for intervenor's suit).

A jump cue-bid is a mixed (i.e., semipreemptive)
raise that shows at least one defensive trick."

However, if the partnership plays that new suit advances
are FORCING (by UPH) or plays *transfer advances*, THEN
jump shift advances are not needed as natural, invitational bids, hence can be played as FIT-SHOWING.

I play “transfer advances” of overcalls (with new suit
advances below the cue-bid as forcing), so I can play the jump shift advances as fit-showing which I find quite useful. Three level jump shifts are game invitational, while four level jump shifts are also fit-showing, but show more playing strength.
6 hours ago
Craig Zastera edited this comment 6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm pretty much on the same page as Richard here.
I thought very seriously about bidding 3NT (instead of 3).
Partner must have at least 6 good s and a good hand too.

Give him, e.g. xxx-xx-Ax-KQJxxx and 3NT probably makes.

There are some relevent issues, though:
1. What would partner's 2 directly over (1) have been?
I'm assuming that it would not have been natural in
OP's methods (we play it as natural as do many I
think). OP should have specified.

2. Does “good/bad 2NT” apply to me (advancer) on this
auction?? If it does (as I play), then 3 would be
an unambiguous game-invite (because 2NT “bad” would
be used if advancer just wanted to compete).
If 3 were a clear game-try (as I play), then that
call would be an attractive choice.
But without “good/bad”, I do not think 3 here
(presumably competitive) is strong enough as I view
our chances for 3NT be good.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, I think this is exactly the *right* vulnerability for 3 with the OP hand. At a different vulnerability, this hand would probably be too good for 3.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play double is penalty oriented–a hand with some length in their suit where responder has reason to believe defending their doubled contract could be our best result.
Usually, this will be a weak hand where he is not confident our side has a game, but depending on VUL it might be a hand where game is possible but he hopes their penalty will be worth more.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A lot depends on your side's defensive methods when they show specifically BOTH MAJORS over our 1NT opening.

I believe that it pays to have a special defense for their BOTH MAJORS interference when that call is 2 or lower.

When they overcall our 1NT with DBL, 2, 2, or 2 showing BOTH MAJORS, we play:
2 (if available): GF with s
2: GF with s
3: invitational with s
3: invitational with s
2N: relay to 3, less than invitational with s or s
or, if responder continues with 3M it shows values
for 3NT with stopper in M but not OM
Or, if responder continues 3NT, values for 3NT with
both majors stopped.

3M: shortness in M, GF, generally both minors

3NT: values for 3NT but neither major stopped.
DOUBLE: negative, both minors. Desire to compete in a minor
2/2 (if available): natural, NF

Over 2 (DONT) showing both majors:
DOUBLE is either GF with s (stolen bid) OR
“negative” (both minors, competitive values)
Opener assumes the latter, but responder can
correct if GF with s.

With methods similar to these, responder's DOUBLE in OP auction must be penalties. If he wanted to compete in a minor, he would have doubled 2.

But if partnership methods were different, e.g. a double of (2) would suggest interest in penalizing them in a major suit contract, then the double in OP auction could reasonably be “take-out”– a hand with both minors that wishes to compete (i.e. if responder had no way to show that hand type last round).
Sept. 14
Craig Zastera edited this comment Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would not redouble here unless I were sure partner would not take it as a “support redouble” showing 3 s.

It is fairly common to play support X/XX even in auctions where responder has made a competitive 2/1.
See, for example, the Wikipedia entry on “support doubles”:
   "West  North    East    South
1♦ 1 ♥ 2♣ 2 ♦
Dbl
In this case with a really competitive auction, someone is
probably stretching their bid. West has opened and his
partner has shown five clubs and 10 points yet South is
showing a limit raise of Hearts.
The double is still support. It is particularly important
in this instance."
Sept. 14
Craig Zastera edited this comment Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chose XX, but actually I think any methods where you cannot play 1NX are seriously deficient.

If I were playing weak NT, about the only feature of our run-out methods I would insist on would be that they must allow our side to be able to play 1NX. After that, I would accede to whatever other details partner was fond of.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If opener has a four or five card major, playing 3M will be best.
Otherwise, playing 4 is best (if your methods allow you to stop in 4).

Opener will hold a 4+ card major about 64% of the time.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ah, I miss the simple, predictable behavior of Boston drivers.

The rule for pedestrians in Boston is “if the Laws of Physics permit him to hit you, he will”, although some considered it unsporting for the car to come up onto the sidewalk to do so.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For opener's jump rebid of a new suit, normal Jacoby 2NT requires a 5+ card “good suit” for the second suit.

A common agreement is “two of the three top honors” in the second suit. Some partnerships may relax that requirement slightly, but I do not think K9xxx would be considered sufficient by many.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Although I favor an initial 2 (as I said above), there is some excuse for starting with only 1 on OP hand.

The strength is borderline for 1/2, but the advantage of a “heavy” 1 is that you may get a convenient chance to show your s next time. A jump to 2 would preclude that.

It is possible that the hand belongs in s if partner has four s and only three s.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't it common to play the double as a game try?
But if so, “pass” is usually a permissable option for responder.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was mainly contrasting your result with what might have happened if my suggestion of opening 3 in 4th chair had been followed. I'm guessing that might have bought the contract, which was my point in opening at that level.
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure I re-constructed the deal correctly, but it appears to me from your description that 3 could have been held to 3 (by a lead), while 4 is always cold. (?)

Also, appears that the opponents can make only 7 tricks in s (after a lead) so their judgment not to bid (3) appears to have been correct (?), although had you opened 1 instead of 1, partner probably would not have found a lead vs. a contract, in which case they can make 8 tricks.
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Classic 3 card raise with good s and a worthless doubleton in an unbid suit.
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The extra is what is wrong. 2-suited bids show equal length suits or one more in lower suit.
So x-QJxxx-x-AQxxxx would be OK for 2NT.

I do not understand “strength is about right.” I play 2-suited bids as “continuous range”, so *any* strength from whatever I deem as an appropriate minimum for the conditions (vulnerability, form of scoring, auction, etc.) on up is “appropriate strength.”
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 2 shows s too strong to start with an overcall in OP partnership, then this would seem to be the perfect hand for that call.

We play “ELC”, so for us double then 2 would suggest 4=6 red suits with fewer HCPs than OP hand.
So I would have to do something other than 2 now unless I were content with a “tactical underbid” (2) rather than attempting a descriptive rebid (3? 3NT? 2NT?)
Sept. 12
Craig Zastera edited this comment Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One can say at least that OP hand could not be any better for the mere 1 advance.

Personally, I think it is (just) strong enough to have started with 2. I view that advance as showing 9-11 “support points”.
Here, I count an extra point for the 5th and two for the stiff , bringing it just up to that 9 “point” threshhold.

I would have been much happier to have bid the full value of my hand last round so I could now sit back and be content with whatever partner did.

Now I have to wonder what sort of hand partner might have to justify 4 opposite what might have been a 4=3=3=3 Yarborough.
AKxxx-AQxx-AQx-x seems like about the least that would make 4 plausible, and 6 is excellent opposite that. So I feel I have to do something now to indicate my “super max” hand in context.
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I not only bid 5 now but plan to bid 6 over 5 if they bid that.
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This OP hand seems remarkably similar (except for suit transpositions) to one posted recently here:

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/interesting-squeeze/

On that one, it took a trump lead to set the slam legitimately, but
a shift to the JT98 suit through dummy's AQxx at trick 2 would break
up an impending squeeze (although declarer could still get home with 3 ruffs in dummy).
Sept. 12
Craig Zastera edited this comment Sept. 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 180 181 182 183
.

Bottom Home Top