Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Craig Zastera
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 123 124 125 126
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Might be relevent to know if advancer's 2NT would be Lebensohl if we choose to double.

Personally, I do not play Lebensohl over doubles of their 2 openings (but do over 2 and 2).
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was unaware that Namyats was originally played backwards.
Clearly better to use 4/4 to show the better hands because:
(a) gives an extra step (4m + 1) which can be used
profitably when responder has a good hand with slam
interest

(b) Opening 4M with the weaker hand takes away more
bidding room from the opponents and reduces their
possible intervening actions with good hands, i.e.
over 4m opening they can bid directly or pass and
bid when 4M comes back around. Also, they can use
a DOUBLE of the artificial 4m to show some good
hand types with relative impunity.
23 hours ago
Craig Zastera edited this comment 18 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Doesn't that depend on whether 2 (or 2 for that matter) is forcing?

If it is not forcing (or even invitational) as I believe most play (BWS), then I don't see why 2 (NF) is particularly better than, say, 1NT.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Obviously depends on methods.

Assuming that new suit advances are not forcing and that cue-bid (2) does not promise a fit, this hand seems strong enough to start with 2 (forcing, fit not promised).

I was shocked at all the votes for 1NT. This hand with 13 HCPs seems much too strong for that IMO.

2NT would be OK on values, although the lack of a stopper in their suit would be worrisome to me.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This would be a 3NT opening in my methods to show a 4 level pre-empt in an unspecified minor.

That convention goes along with playing 4 and 4 openings as Namyats (good 4 and 4 pre-empts, respectively).

But since OP did not specify methods, I voted for 4 under the assumption that would show this hand type in OP methods while 3NT would not.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But the “A” option (they are not labled, but I would assume the first one listed is “A”) is the one where the A(ce) is cashed first.

My point is that this is *NOT* the way one would play the suit at matchpoints with no special circumstances.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with your percentages but not your statement:
“A is better at MPs.”

At matchpoints, you are trying to maximize tricks, not safety play the suit to avoid 2 losers on (unlikely) bad break.
Hence, at matchpoints, in general, one would run the Q to maximize chances of making 5 tricks in the suit.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it is important for partner's 4 here to be unambiguously pre-emptive.

If he wants to bid 4 to make based on HCP strength (as well as fit, obviously), he should make that clear by bidding 4 instead.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partnerships have different agreements for max strength for an overcall.

I do think modern trend (in US anyway) is towards *higher* upper limits for simple overcalls to avoid having to double with off-shape (for a TO double) hands just because they are “too strong” to overcall.

My belief is that OP hand here is within limits for a 2 level overcall with only a 5 card suit. That is, I think most would be fine with 2 here.

When overcaller is about this strength but with a good *6* card suit, that is beginning to be too much for a simple overcall.
If a jump to 3 here is defined as pre-emptive (i.e. weak), then with, say, AKQxxx-AKx-x-J92, perhaps more would start with a double (although I think some might still overcall 2 even with that).
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Defining 3NT (or, better 3) here as “Baby Blackwood” could be helpful if you really think partner can have 3 aces for his 3 rebid.

I don't think one needs 3NT (or 3) as “non-serious” here since partner has shown a minimum, thus you don't need to make a slam try unless you actually have ….. serious slam interest.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see why that is “the real question.”

You are never “allowed to use the UI of partner's failure to alert” in choosing your action.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would be interesting to see the full deal.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This one seems clear-cut to me.

We've opened a very narrowly defined gambling 3NT.
We've shown a solid (usually) 7 card minor suit with little outside.

We have exactly what (we believe) our bid has shown. So why would we act again? We wouldn't. Any further action by our side is up to partner after we have opened a pre-empt.

The fact that we have UI that tells us partner thinks we have a hand radically different from what we hold (and believe we have shown) is irrelevent.

We described our hand with our opening bid. Now, no matter what happens, we pass. If partner takes some action based on his belief we have a very different hand, we'll likely get a bad result. Too bad.
April 16
Craig Zastera edited this comment April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tough one (as was last round problem).

I passed the first time. Double by partner is pretty predictable. Now I have to reveal my strategy.

I suppose passing out (1SX) is a possibility.

Another is a jump to *3* which partner will surely
interpret as some sort of goodish (invitational) hand with a doubleton .

But a 2 cue-bid now seems like the best way to torture partner without committing to strain (or level).
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for your votes. Interesting that there is not much consensus.

My partner held this hand and chose to rebid 2. That is where he played it.
He made 12 tricks, +230, although 11 are all that are there vs. best defense.
12 tricks can always be made in s, though (with best play).

My hand was:
94-K984-KQ43-642
The West hand was:
K-T62-T85-AKQ753

I definitely dislike the 2 rebid (and also 2) because I think this hand is just too good for such a minimum rebid.
The results opposite my (IMO) relatively minimum negative double would seem to support that view.

At the table, I opined that partner should have rebid 3. I commented that even over that rebid, it is not obvious that I should raise to 4 (opinions?), but I might have done that.

Upon reflection, I see the merits of 3 as it opens up the possibilities of reaching a red suit contract when responder is very short in s. 3 is kind of one dimensional and may fare poorly when responder has stiff (or fewer) .

But I suppose that 3 is GF and I'm not sure this South hand is quite good enough for that (but maybe it is). Still, 3 likely ensures reaching the best strain, even if it might get us too high sometimes.

I don't care for 3 too much either because I think that (invitational) call should deliver *5* s (doubler has not promised s).
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We're not far apart.
Your example is one where (for me) 2NT would be clear.
My example is one where I'd consider 2NT but not clear.

Obviously, both VUL and form of scoring are important in borderline cases. More conservative at IMPs.
April 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just a bit too weak for an Unusual NT here. More likely to give opponents useful info when they declare than it is to allow our side to outbid them for a make or profitable sac.

If these two suits were majors and they'd opened 1m, I would make a Michaels cue-bid. But when we have minors and they have majors, a slightly better hand is required for the 2-suited overcall to show a profit.

Make the hand something like x-xx-QJ9xx-KQJxx, and I'd probably go with 2NT.
April 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can't imagine doing other than PASS here.

Partner knows what I've got *AND* what he's got. That puts him in a much better position to act again (if appropriate) than I am.

I would consider 3 only with *4* (or 5) s and more than a minimum.
April 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of the better system changes I've made is to adopt transfer overcalls of their weak 1NT openers.

The advantage of this is that one does not need to DOUBLE with strong unbalanced hands–instead one can transfer into a long suit and then, perhaps, bid again (either a 2nd suit or rebid first suit) to show a very good hand.

That way, DOUBLE suggest a relatively balanced hand, i.e. something like a (strong) 1NT opener so that NT “systems on” methods make sense in advancing such doubles.

This applies in balancing seat too.
So in my methods, I would balanced 2 here (transfer to ).
If partner just accepts the transfer, I likely would bid 3 next.

With OP methods, I guess I bid 2 to show “a 6 card major”.
A bit more awkward, maybe, since it's not clear to me what I do over partner's likely 2. 2 does not seem like enough.
Would 3 show primary s and secondary s? Or would it just be a (help suit) game try in s?
April 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't play WJS (3 in my methods would be natural invitational).

But since they are available, I can't imagine what the 2nd choice is. I thought about PASS until I noticed my support wasn't too good.

After the 3 WJS works poorly here, perhaps partner can be persuaded to give them up, since if they aren't a winner with *THIS* hand, then there must be a better use for the bid.
April 14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 123 124 125 126
.

Bottom Home Top