Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Craig Zastera
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 213 214 215 216
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is nothing obscure about the alert requirements for a (non-competitive) jump shift response. If it is anything other than natural and game-forcing, then an alert is required.
6 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good hand for transfer advances. With TAs, advance 2 (s), then bid s next time (natural).
56 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm assuming partner's double is just an “ordinary negative double” (not how we play it)?
an hour ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A natural invitational 3 level jump shift *IS* alertable:
"◦ Game-forcing natural jump shifts are not Alertable.
Other jump shifts (either conventional or natural
and weak or intermediate) not in competition must
be Alerted."
Above from ACBL “Alert Procedures” document.
an hour ago
Craig Zastera edited this comment an hour ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No. 2 is always an artificial GF and 2 is always a request for partner to bid 2 (which must be honored when opener's rebid was 1NT but may occasionally not be when his rebid was 1M).

There is never any 2-level “4th suit forcing” in any auction that starts 1X-1Y-1Z when playing XYZ methods. One could consider 1 as “4th suit forcing” in the auction 1-1-1-1.
an hour ago
Craig Zastera edited this comment an hour ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think 1NT balance over (1M) should go up to 16 HCPs (and play that advancer's 2 is “range Stayman”).

But OP methods limit 1NT to 14, so I can't choose that.
Even if up to 16 is allowed, 1NT balance is not clear cut with both a max in HCPs *and* that stiff J.

But OP agreements make it easier to pick 2 since 1NT would be a distinct underbid in his methods.
8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I picked 3 but was very tempted by 3 (splinter raise of s).

I'm very surprised that 3 hasn't gotten any votes thus far.
The danger of not making the splinter now is that it may be awkward to show this hand later.

Say partner rebids 3NT over our 3. Are we going to pull to 4?? I decided I would do that, but it could easily be wrong.
If we instead make the 3 splinter now, we can be content should partner 3NT.
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the “partner has promised absolutely nothing” is kind of a red herring. The usual guidance in bidding over (their) pre-empts is to “assume” that partner has a “random 7 HCPs” and bid on that basis.

Sure it is *possible* that partner has nothing, but it is also possible that he has 10 HCPs (as on OP deal). The “assume a random 7 count” guide-line strikes a good balance between optimism and pessimism.

South does have the powerful “6-4” shape. Even if his K is “garbage”, game might well make opposite just the Q (to 4 or 5) and the Q–much less than the “assumed” 7 HCPs, albeit “well-chosen” and not random points.
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I chose 3NT but don't like it because I think this hand is too strong for that.

3NT rebid is not really supposed to be all that strong in HCP. x-Ax-Kxx-AKQxxxx is typical.

With a partner who was clued in to modern scientific bidding, I would probably prefer 2 (fake reverse).
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is better to use 4 as the keycard ask in s so that 4 is available as “Reverse Baze”.
Reversing 4 and 4 as I suggest allows opener a step over the Reverse Baze 4 (i.e. 4) to use as “Last Train”.

Using 4 as keycard ask and 4 as the balanced slam invite in s forces opener to choose between 4 (sign-off?) and bidding above 4.

There is no benefit from using 4 as the keycard ask in s (you could even use 4 “Kickback” for that purpose) as the extra bidding room is of little/no importance on hands that are suitable for a key-card ask.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Presumably partner's 3 shows extra values, so 3NT seems easy (probably would bid it even without the EV 3 rebid).
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Strive to make 2 overcalls of their 1 openings whenever possible as it often causes them problems.

Here, 2 seems totally clear (I even thought of 3 which can cause even more problems but rejected it as too dangerous under OP conditions).
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is possible (we do it) to have some GF sequences start with 2 (relay to 2). Then, responder's 3rd bids *above* 3 of his original suit can be used to describe various GF hands (we use them for splinters in support of opener's suit(s)).
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play XYZ but slightly different variation than OP because we do not use 2NT rebid by responder as a relay to 3.

I'm not saying I think there is necessarily anything wrong with the 2N==>3 approach, just that because we don't play that way I have not given much thought to the implications of that technique and how it might be used to aid in describing various responder hand types when responder chooses to continue over the forced 3 and how it might change the best use for some other sequences.

I do think that as long as responder's jump 3 rebid is defined as GF (and probably slammish) as it is both for OP and in my methods, that sequence should promise 5=5 shape at least. So I picked that choice.

And I definitely do not think 2-2-3 should agree s are trump. If anything, I would NOT expect s to be trump on that sequence. Either s or perhaps NT unless something unexpected later.

Again, I did not vote on the 2N==>3 continuations as I do not have experience with that agreement.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess it is time to post the “real deal” and our results on this board.
I held this hand and advanced 3 as the majority of you chose. This was passed out. I (easily) made 10 tricks for a 36% board. Here is the full deal:

J9432
Q75
KQ
Q65
Q8 76
AJT9632 4
987 AJT5432
2 K43
AKT5
K8
6
AJT987
After lead to the A and a ruff, I had only the A yet to lose since the black suits behaved.

A gold star to Patrick Laborde for correctly diagnosing that 3NT is the “rock star” contract which would have yielded 100% of the matchpoints when 11 tricks roll in.

No pair in our club played NT, but four out of eight did reach 4 (all making).
We were the only pair in 3.
Two of the other three pairs played 4S (one making 6 to tie us at +170, the other -1), while the final pair defended 4XE and beat it one trick (E/W can always make 9 tricks in s or 8 in s).

I did consider my choice quite close between 3 and 4. If partner's double had been in direct seat, I think I would have gone with 4, but on actual auction I thought I should allow for a “lighter” balancing double.

I didn't give much consideration to 3NT.
When I first saw dummy, I thought partner should have raised me to 4, but I reconsidered because his :Kx looks likely to be “wastepaper”.

Partner thought he had done well to double rather than balancing with 4 which he had strongly considered.
It is true that his double could prove awkward if I advance in s–I suppose he would have to “correct” 4 to 5 (on actual deal, s can be held to 9 tricks, so a 4 balance would not have worked well).
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I really do not think the argument for 2NT rebid by opener as “natural” is very persuasive.

Particularly if it can show “any strength”, because in that case it will always result in playing 2NT. That just cannot be as likely to be the winning result as the flexible benefits made possible by a “scrambling 2NT” which opens up the possibility of reaching various alternative contracts.

At least if 2NT rebid were defined as natural and a maximum hand, that would allow responder occasionally (when he held a good 8 or 9 HCPs) to raise to 3NT, hence would sometimes (not often) allow a good game to be found that might be missed otherwise.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Doubling first has several advantages:
1. Opener may be able to pass for penalties.
Even on the actual OP hand that turns out to be
the winning decision, although I do not really
expect OP opener to find the “penalty pass” with
only :QTx. Still, they cannot make 2, while
opener's side cannot make any contract higher than
2.

2. 2NT Lebensohl followed by 3 really ought to be
a 6 card suit, or at least a very chunky 5-bagger,
particularly when VUL. Otherwise, we are in
serious danger of bidding beyond our LOTT level and
risking a disaster.

3. If opener has 4 or 5 s, the negative double will
find a contract either because opener bids 3
over the double (generally with 5) or because he
bids a scrambling 2NT and responder “guesses” to
remove to 3 rather than 3 (not a clear-cut
choice, but a possibility).

4. Even if responder doubles and then removes 2NT or
3 to 3, we reach the same contract we would have
if responder started with 2NT Lebensohl, but we
have allowed for other possibilities (defending 2X
or playing in 3).
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The negative double is *always* less than a GF hand.

In fact, I would prefer it to be less than a game-invitational hand (i.e. just competitive values), but I am not sure that can be achieved.

But why would one ever make a negative double with a GF hand?

With a 4 card (unbid) major and GF strength, responder just cue-bids (either directly or after Lebensohl 2NT, depending on whether or not he has a stopper in their suit).

With a 5 card major and GF values, responder uses “transfer Lebensohl” to transfer to his 5 card suit. Then, if opener accepts the transfer (which means he declines an invite), responder continues to game (generally 3NT, which opener will correct to 4M with 3+ card support).

And with a 6 card major, Texas transfers are available.

So a negative double is never stronger than game-invitational strength, and with only an invite will not have a 5+ card suit.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So both 3NT and 4 are makeable on actual deal (but both seem to require some kind of squeeze with winning play in 4 play a bit trickier I think).
How can E/W go wrong?
Jan. 19
Craig Zastera edited this comment Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do believe that it is clear in our agreements (because we follow the methods from Robson's book unless we've agreed to a specific exception, and Robson explicitly cites our exact OP auction as a case where 2NT is “scrambling) that 2NT by opener would be ”scrambling“.

It also seem likely (from the actual auction) that my partner ”forgot“ that 2NT by him would be scrambling as it is hard to imagine his choosing a 3 rebid while fully cognizant of the option of bidding a ”scrambling“ 2NT.

I'm also not sure why you refer to North hand as an ”ugly“ six-count. To me, it seems like a rather nice 6 count since the 6 HCPs come in the form of two Kings (about the best form for 6 HCPs) *and* the hand has a nice 5 card major *and* the hand has a doubleton with no wasted secondary honors in overcaller's suit.

I would agree that some ”ugly" 6 HCP hands should probably pass over (2) overcall, but OP hand does not seem to me to be one of them.
Jan. 19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 213 214 215 216
.

Bottom Home Top