Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Craig Zastera
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can't answer a question like this where you have misbid previously.

This is an obvious TO double directly over (1).
Having not made that call, nothing you can do now will allow partner to imagine you hold these cards.
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I went through a phase of making lead directing doubles vs. 3NT.
Even though I directed the best lead, it often turned out that -550 was worse than -430.
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've thought of that too, but it does not seem to be commonly played, at least in my experience.

But in standard style (as OP describes), I do not view responder's 3 as a “forcing inquiry”.

I think it is a statement that he not only has GF values but that he is interested in playing in s. Often, he will have a hand with slam interest in s.

If he wanted to show a stopper, he could have rebid 3NT or 2NT to be followed by 3NT (exact distinction subject to partnership agreement, probably shows different strength ranges, with perhaps 2NT then 3NT being stronger).
Nov. 15, 2018
Craig Zastera edited this comment Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Although I voted “no for both”, I am curious about the reasoning of those who made a “split” vote.

I would think that if not voting the same way for both, it would be more reasonable to be “yes” for “mini-multi” (only a weak 2 in a major) and “no” for “full” multi (includes strong option(s) in addition to weak 2 in a major) because the full version (with strong option(s)) would be harder to defend against.

Yet, as of this posting there are twice as many votes for “yes to multi, no to mini-multi” as there are for the other way around.

Anyone care to explain?
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Strongly disagree with opener's 4 bid.

That call should be a “help suit slam try” and show long s with a hand that wants to highlight that suit so that if responder has secondary honor(s) there (or shortness) he will be encouraged to move towards slam.

If opener just wants responder to cue-bid (up the line), he should bid *3NT* over responder's 3 to send that message.
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That seems like an easy 2NT by responder.
Now we should reach 3NT whether opener just raises or stops off to show his support.
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 but harder than your other “horror” since here we are not showing our strength (but not denying either).

Still, not quite enough for 3 (game forcing).
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 –routine.
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your other problem is entirely different as it is not about passing an opening bid.

FWIW, I think that (second) problem is close between 2 and 2 (2 is out of the question). I don't mind a “light” reverse with good 3 card support for partner's s, although I'll admit this one is pushing the limit because the honor structure is poor.

A “nicer” 15 count (QJx-AKxx-AJxxx-x) would be an “easy” 2 reverse for me. Note that I'd only reverse this light with good 3 card support for responder's s.
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The “usual” meaning for a responsive double here is both minors.
Long ago I too played 2NT to show both minors and the responsive double to show four s plus a minor.

But I have found that Lebensohl 2NT is too valuable to give up for this. Partner has asked us to bid a suit, so when I have four s, I show them with a tool to differentiate game invites from just competitive values.
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True–rebid will be awkward after (not unlikely) 1 response.

Still is that reason enough to pass what seems to me (and I'm a “sound” opening bid advocate) to be an obvious opening bid?

I would in fact rebid 2 over 1, but agree that having to rebid a (not so great) 5 card suit is not appealing.
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard,
I'm not sure what “auction context” you have in mind that would change bidding 6 of a non-trump suit to show ace in that suit as well as first round control of the “problem” suit.

Assuming there has been no key-card ask (usual), having this agreement is quite useful.
On OP auction, for example, if 5 is known to show 1st round control but neither minor ace, then if we continue with any grand slam try, we are impying first round control of both minors as well as strength for grand slam interest based on previous auction, so partner can bid a grand with a trick source.
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the standard meaning for partner's 5 here is first round control and neither minor suit ace.
He could in theory have :Ax(x).

A 6m bid instead would show 1st round control and the ace in the bid minor.

5NT would have shown guarded K.
Pass would show no control.
6 would show singleton (other than the A).
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why did you pass an opening hand?
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don't understand criticism of opener's auction.

Using jump 3NT rebid (by either partner) to show 15-17 with appropriate shape and stoppers is quite a standard treatment in 2/1 GF methods.
One of the advantages of 2/1 GF methods is to reduce the need to open 1NT with a 5 card major.

However, I disagree that responder should expect opener to be “short in s”. The ideal hand for opener's sequence would be 3=5=2=3 shape, 16 HCPs, and stoppers in both blacks.

I picked 5, but perhaps 4NT is better. One or the other.
I thought it might be important to show the 3 card support as well as slam invitational strength.
Nov. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Depends on agreements, of course.

I consider this auction a “classic” for Lebensohl (aka “good/bad 2NT”) as it is imperative for advancer to be able to differentiate a hand with true game invitational strength (e.g. 8-10 or 9-11, whatever) from one that just wants to compete at the 3 level (say 5-7 or 6-8) because doubler can have quite a strong hand (so game is a real possibility).

Therefore, with Lebensohl available, this hand is clearly not good enough for an immediate, game-invitational 3.

Therefore, I advance 2NT, Lebensohl intending to correct 3 to 3. If doubler bids 3 instead of 3, that is “equal level conversion” in my methods, i.e. showing something like a minimum range TO double with four s and 5/6 s.
Nov. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Leonard,
I agree with you that if the K were guarded, then this hand would be (just) worth a “good/good” reply, even given the conditions (vul in 2nd chair).

The point about using the cheapest response as the Ogust inquiry is just conforming to “useful space principle” (similar to using Kickback for key card asks instead of always using 4NT). There are other examples of this /NT inversion.

We even extend this to using 2 reply to our (weak) 2 openers as our artificial ask. We use it as “feature ask” because we believe that pursuing 3NT is more likely the objective after a 2 opener (but could use it as Ogust).
Our replies are:
2: “feature” in or
then 2NT asks which:
… 3: feature
… 3: feature
3: feature
3: no feature (or minimum hand not showing feature)
3: solid suit (AKQ)

With this scheme, a 2 response to the 2 opener shows s, and a 2NT response shows s.

Sure, it is probably a good idea to encode two meanings into the 1st step reply so as to allow the description of *5* different hand types while still not rebidding above 3 of opener's suit.
Nov. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted for 1.
1NT is a possible alternative, but hand seems a trifle thin.

After 1NT overcall, we play advancer's 2 level suit bids as natural, for play.
That right-sides the contracts and makes it a little less dangerous to make marginal 1NT overcalls as partner can escape to any suit at the 2 level when he has 5.

I would not pass with this hand.
Nov. 14, 2018
Craig Zastera edited this comment Nov. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This depends on partnership agreements.
We define “good suit” as 2/3 top honors.

So this hand is “good suit” by that definition.

“Good hand” is a bit more subjective. And, it depends on position and vulnerability.

Second seat is the “worst” position for a weak 2, so partner is expecting a classic hand.
Also, we are VUL, so that suggests we need a better hand for a weak 2 then if not VUL.

Therefore, I would tell partner “good suit / bad hand” since I have the “minimum” good suit and the value of the stiff K is unclear.
But I would consider “good/good”.

BTW, you might consider using 2 as your “Ogust ask” over 2 openers instead of 2NT. That way, none of opener's replies go beyond 3.
With this treatment, a 2NT response shows s (and is forcing but not necessarily to game).
Nov. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It could be a “maximal overcall double”, i.e. a game invitation in s.

This convention generally applies when “our” suit is immediately below theirs and they have competed to a level where we have no room for other game tries.

It occurs most commonly when we have s and they have s and they have competed up to 3. In such cases, most would play that 3 is “just competitive”, so if instead we have a game-invitation in s, we use “double” (maximal overcall double) to show this.

Some consider having a penalty double too important to give up for a “MO” double. Such players, when they have a game invite, just jump to game and hope for the best.
Nov. 14, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top