Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Craig Zastera
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the idea of using the jump reverse to show a 5=6 (or better) hand that is too weak in HCPs to reverse is that it is very descriptive, whereas if one just “reversed” with that, partner would expect more HCPs.

Might be too high, but with such big shape it is usually going to be OK to reach that level provided partner understands what you've got.

I don't play that method, though, (I like the split range splinter treatment), so I can't defend it too hard.
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I suppose I should. This hand is a good example of why we play 2 as natural. I don't think a tiny detail about opponents' methods w.r.t 1 opening should make the difference in our definition of 2 overcall–it does not for us.

I definitely do not fancy the popular “pass” with OP hand.
And even though I've recently learned that 1NT overcalls with a small singleton are quite popular, that doesn't appeal much to me either.

Perhaps I need to learn what *3* overcall shows in OP methods before I change my vote. Is that at least natural and a “good hand”, or have they banned showing a suit entirely?
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OP didn't say anything about 2 when I voted and commented.
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, probably. If responder is planning to make an Exclusion keycard ask if opener shows 3-card support, I think he should have worked this out prior to bidding 3.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems clear that 5 is Exclusion–responder made a forcing artificial bid asking for 3 card support and opener showed he had it.

So now that partnership has established s as trump, so a leap to 5 has to be Exclusion key card ask with a void.

So if opener replies with # of keycards (excluding A), I don't think there is any problem of UI.
If opener does something else, *then* I might have a problem.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems to me that a 4 level VUL overcall on even :AQxxxxx and the two round suit Kings is pretty aggressive and I can't imagine bidding it with less.

So I'm planning to bid a grand slam and am only wondering if it needs to be in s (a ruff for 13th trick?) or whether we have 13 “peelers” in NT.

Not quite sure how I'm goint to find this out, but it can hardly hurt to bid 5 now.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I could easily quibble with the preceding auction, but having gotten myself to the point of OP question, I do not believe I can do other than bid 4 (unless I wanted to bid higher than 4 which I do not) as 4 now would 100% deny holding a control.

Perhaps I should not have embarked on a slam hunt once I learned partner has 13-14 HCPs with no shortness. Sure, hands can be constructed where slam can make, but seem well against the odds to me, particularly at matchpoints.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is 2 natural?
We play a direct 2 overcall of (1) as natural (we use 2 as Michaels).
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I find opening this trash distasteful… but hey, apparently that is your method.

I've rebid 1NT with not a hint of a stopper and a (sub) minimum opener to boot (but what else could I do at that point?).

Now partner wants *me* to do something intelligent?
He already knows I've got 11-14, a balanced hand, two s.
And he probably thinks/hopes I've got s stopped.

Passing 2 doubled with what seems to me about the worst possible hand for defending (2X) “consistent” with my previous bidding doesn't appeal at all.

So why not 2? I've got 4 decent ones and it is the cheapest bid available. After that, partner should probably be able to figure out my exact shape: 2=4 majors for sure, likely not 4 s (else I might have passed 2X), hence probably 2=4=3=4.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see why responder can't have a hand suitable for a fit-jump 3. Say AQxxx-Kxxxx-xx-x
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Over 1M, 2NT is 5=5 minors (or better) with just short of an opening bid.
Over 1m, it is 11-12 balanced invite.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 was forcing 1-round (but not GF).
But after opener cue-bids (2) we are in a GF (or at least forced to 4m if 3NT not playable). Hence 2NT is forcing.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robson explicitly recommends that FJs should still apply after 1M-(1NT)-?, (see above quotes).

Have I ever had one? I don't think so, but I am glad that I would know what it meant if partner did it.

As to “double”, yes of course it is strong and penalty oriented.
But Robson says one should be wary of that choice:
    " One-major - one no-trump
The main thing to say here is that you should
not be over-eager to defend 1NT or 1NT doubled
with reasonable support for partner."

He gives as a specific example: T6-KT53-KJ6-Q753
after the auction 1-(1NT). He says you should *NOT* double with this hand–rather you should show a “fair raise.”
Jan. 16
Craig Zastera edited this comment Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robson (in “Partnership Bidding at Bridge”) discusses auctions where partner opens 1M and RHO overcalls, e.g.

1 (2) ??

For the above auction, 3 response is explicitly defined as a “fit-jump to the four level”, i.e. forcing, promising support (at least 3 cards), and a good suit (usually 5, but he shows one example with only AQJx).

4 (instead of 3) would also be a fit-jump, but jumps to 4 or 5 would be “natural, to play” (not fit-jumps).

He does discuss the case of a 1NT overcall, and says:
   "Otherwise, much as before.
Jumps in new suits are fit-showing"

His other recommendations after 1M-(1NT) are:

"− 2: both majors; say 5-3 with five cards in the unbid
major; you may have only a doubleton honour in
partner’s suit playing five-card majors;

− 2: sound raise to two-major (plus);

− 2/2 (partner’s suit): preemptive; up to a poor 7 HCP;

− 2/2 (new major) : natural, no fit; non-forcing.
Jan. 16
Craig Zastera edited this comment Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After some thought, I decided on this extreme OP hand type, *6* s, AQJxxx, would suffice for me to respond 1 rather than 1 on T654.

The thought was over whether I would require *7* s to the AQJ before I would prefer 1 instead of 1.

I finally decided to be a “maverick” and prefer 1 with *only* 6 s, but I would not think it at all unreasonable to require *7* s before deviating from the normal protocol of “skipping” s with less than game invitational strength and a 4 card major.

Perhaps partnership agreement for 1-3 sequence would be relevent. If that was defined as something like :AQJxxxx and out, perhaps I would then never respond 1 to partner's 1 with a 4 card major and less than game invitational strength.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Without the Q, this hand would not be close to a Drury call.
As it is, it is a dead minimum Drury–10 HCPs, the poorest 3 card support, 4333 shape.

Still, it would seem egregious to “skip” over 4 with the A when partner could have anything and he has indicated strong slam interest.

If partner wants to bid 4 over my 4, there will be time enough to pass then.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2NT now (obviously 100% forcing as my partner has made a strong 2/1 response and I have answered with a cue-bid–we are forced at least to 3NT).

This leaves room for partner to make another descriptive bid.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't have to think too hard about eventualities that may not occur as long as I think I can handle most likely possibilities.

Here, I'm hoping partner will bid s over my double.
Then I can raise.

If he instead bids 3, I will bid 3NT.

If he bids only 2, there will be time enough then to make a decision between 2NT and 3.
After all, 3NT might make opposite as little as
xxx-xxx-JTxxx-Ax
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can't bid 2 (even if I wanted to) as in my methods 2 shows both majors (typically 5=5 in a weakish hand).

I could bid 2, natural and NF, but that seems a bit misdescriptive.

So I risk DOUBLE. I'm nervous with minimum HCPs for that call and so far from a balanced hand type.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, good problem.
My views:

3 is horrible–not to be considered.
The one thing 3 should deliver is good s.

I'm not too unhappy to GF with this hand, although
clearly that decision depends on opening bid style.
I play pretty sound opening bids (but does my partner?),
so that makes the slight “stretch” to GF in pursuit
of finding best strain less uncomfortable.

That said, I don't find 2NT all that objectionable,
particularly if “lightish” openers are your style.
It does, of course, greatly reduce the chances of
landing in a superior contract (whether that be
3 or 4). But maybe there is no superior contract.

Between 2 and 3, I prefer 2 as it saves a lot of
bidding space.
Jan. 15
.

Bottom Home Top