Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Caprera
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 86 87 88 89
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Russ, what thoughts do you have with respect to increasing the participation of juniors in bridge and the ACBL? If we don't do something, the game is going to die when we do.
Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry again. When I edited the deal, I lost the HAQ. Now corrected.
Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am asking the doublers because I really don't know. My teammates were in agreement that double emphasizes the lower suit. It seems somewhat arbitrary to me and one could agree to the opposite. The best analogy I can come up with is “equal level conversion”, e.g., (1S)-DBL-2C-2D. But that may not be valid. It does seem like something where an agreement would be useful.
Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That was our defense to 2S.
Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good catch. Thanks. (Corrected)
Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have previously expressed my objection to an automatic lifetime expulsion with no chance to return for first time offenders. (Repeat offenders are a different story.) The 3.5 C's approach is, in my opinion, properly directed. The length of any sanction is largely “facts and circumstances” based, but prescribed and published sentencing standards (e.g., 2 year, 5 year, 10 year) would make the process more efficient and more likely to withstand a legal challenge of being discriminatory, arbitrary or capricious.
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play that 1C(pre)-(3C)-4C is 4=4=4=1 so would start with 3S. That is likely to solicit a club raise from east. We would now be in “pass double inversion.” South would pass, intending to pull the double to diamonds to show two places to play but will be thwarted by north's heart bid which should have a fifth heart. Given the grand requires north to be Axxxx of hearts and out, south needs to make some big heart noise. Getting to 7H will require one partner to “go high.”
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There was an old Bridge World article on a hand like this. The objective was to bid to 7NT in such a way that the opponents were most likely to double. You needed to bid your “suits” (shortest first) in such a way as to create a forcing sequence that made the 7NT final bid credible but sounding like it would fail.

I will start with 2D but I think I subsequently want to emphasize my rebiddable heart suit.
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So they rest of the story is guessable. I bid 1N. Partner was a 5233 12 count. The opponents took the first 9 tricks. In retrospect I think I should have bid 3H.
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Didn't we have this fight last month? The world is split between those who think 1N promises values and those who don't. If it shows values, then new suits should be F1. If it just says, “I think this is our best spot”, then new suits can't be forcing.
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Am I reading this correctly? RHO opens with 2D showing one major and you counter by overcalling 3D showing one major? That is so diabolically insane that I love the thought, if not the bid. The difference is that your opponent has presumably 5-10 hcp and a suit that can play the 2 level. The 3D overcall needs considerably more, both in high cards and suit quality. Nonetheless, I applaud your creativity for thinking outside of a box of n+1 dimensions. (A math professor I had in college once remarked, “Anyone can think in n dimensions, but a real mathematician can think in n+1.”)
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Using a “down two metric” seems to be catching only a small piece of the issue. Does it enable us to find our best part score, game or slam? Does it enable us to penalize the opponents? (Obviously DBL works better than 2S in this regard.) Does it enable the opponents to penalize us? (With opponents opening multi on xxxxx, xx, xxx, xxx, the doubler needs the proverbial nuts. Minus 100 into -110 is a win.) If the opponents declare, how much does it help declarer? Is there a better use for the call selected?

Using double of any artificial weak two level bid to show ~13-15 balanced is simple, consistent and, to us, appears to be reasonably effective. (The first time Annie and I played the European Championship, we ran into some funny two level bids for which we were not prepared. Huub Bertens told us, “We all use double to show a weak notrump” so that is what we did and still do.)

Not as clear to me is whether the 2N advance should be natural, lebensohlish or scrambling (minors or weak hearts if 2H is unavailable.) We have gravitated to ACBL#2 because nothing else seems significantly better and it appears to be the popular choice in the US. By treating 3C as stayman, it prevents the opponents from blowing us out which can happen with a “pass then double” approach.

We are going to be seeing more multi in the US. (For example, it has become popular with the juniors I coach.) I don't think the final answer has been written on defenses against it and other weak two level artificial bids.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For us, doubles of a Michaels bid are “headhunting.” Forcing through 2NT. But as an exception to our general rule that “second double through the force is takeout”, we play that subsequent doubles are penalty. It is the equivalent of 1S-(DBL)-RDB, also an auction where subsequent doubles are penalty.

I suspect that this is a vestige from our earliest days of learning to play. To the contrary, we play that (1N)-DBL-(2X)-DBL and 1X-(1N)-DBL-(2Y)-DBL is takeout through the force (although that force is only through 2H). This works just fine and I don't think that it allows the opponents to escape the lash anymore than does penalty doubles.

The inconsistency in our treatments troubles Annie (and you all know what that means.)
Feb. 13
David Caprera edited this comment Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have to take Cherilyn's side on this. If you want to have fun, creating a bidding system out of whole cloth can be very rewarding. Whether you win with it is probably more a measure of how well you play rather than how good the system is.
Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have 5 trump and you are advocating pass. And then you think you are in a better position to guess whether to bid 7C? We will respectfully agree to disagree because IMO passing is not bridge.
Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It has been reported that some of the new AI computer approaches have evolved to transfer openings. Believing that AI is going to teach us bridge, this could be “correct.”
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, I thought about that but as between having two ten point heart bids and having a forcing raise, I wondered whether 3H forcing may have better upside. Part of that depends on what 2N is.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The 1 of a major opening is the boss opening bid in Precision.”

From the Urban Dictionary, definition of “boss”.
“A person who knows what he or she wants, knows how to get what he wants, and gets it when he wants. He or she lives by his or her own code and does not care about what others think. A boss has his or her own personality, and does not follow the norm, just because it is the norm. A boss does not settle for less than he or she is worthy of.”

I like Kit's characterization of a precision major suit opening. In particular, 1M-4M is money in the bank. There is no safety in bidding over it as responder may be a balanced minimum opening hand. There is no safety in passing because responder can also be one sick puppy. And when the opponents are defending, they know very little about responder until dummy comes down and nothing about declarer.

I am curious about 3H as “invitational.” Having doubled, it would seem that 2H shows a ten count and heart support. Why is this different from
1H-(DBL)-RDB-(1S);
2D-(P)-2H/3H
where I would have thought 3H is typically played as forcing? Perhaps the answer is because, as stated above, South's hand is limited and if North wants to make sure he gets to game he better damn well bid it. Still, if North did want to force after South's rebid of 2D, and assuming that 3H is not forcing, is 2NT a “cuebid”?
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2S is nonforcing, 3S is forcing. 3D is Michaels and partner with longer hearts won't take a joke.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, that is what I was suggesting.
Feb. 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 86 87 88 89
.

Bottom Home Top