Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Donald Lurie
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12 13 14 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
note: to the 2 of you who selected to bid 2, please note that the OP indicates “not playing negative free bids”, so 2D would be forward-going/ decent hand/ forcing at least 1 round (with this P it is almost GF). thx for responding
March 16
Donald Lurie edited this comment March 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand spurred some discussion about what actions are permissible by one who has opened a preempt.
Hypothetically, supposed this west hand makes the very questionable decision to bid 5 over South's double, and North bids 5. Is East permitted to take any additional action at this point? If yes, what? Does a 5 response/ raise invite East to do anything, such as with unexpected shape, or ask any question(s)? What kind of hand should it show?
On the other hand, what action would all of those who recommending passing the double (as opposed to redbl or 5) if North bids 1) 4, 2) 4N, 3) 5m

Yes. This was the companion hand to the Q, AKQ875, 98762, 8. As can be seen, the Q turned out to be big in terms of potential defense. (5 does make and the opponents are the ones making the last decision at the 5-level should anyone elect to make the bid initially)
March 10
Donald Lurie edited this comment March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom: you're getting a 3 response to Ogust 2N (good hand, bad suit)

Good things (potentially) happen to anyone who responds 2 (forcing), conventional or not. On this particular hand you will get some form of raise from opener, possibly a 3 splinter. (Guess what contract you don't want to play)

Having the 2 response as the ask is an interesting idea imo: too much space used up by 2N. You could even use it to check back for (omg) any 4-card majors.

Companion hand was : 9, AQ9, KJ9532, T74 Acknowledged that some might consider this hand too good for 2: so be it.
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
range is about 5-11, 6-card suits, suit quality can be below the standards of some people.
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thx for response:
This was a 2nd seat opening bid of 1, to which a response of 3 would show a mixed raise, and 3 shows a 4+-card LR. most 3-cd support GF's start with semi-artificial 2, while Jac 2NT and splinter are used for GF hands with 4+-card trump support. The acknowledgement regarding 3 as a counter-try has already been discussed above
Had it been a 3rd seat opener, we play 2-way reverse Drury.
thx
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thx Craig:
I already agreed that the west hand (moi) should counter-try (it was late).
But, supposed trump suit was s and counter-try not available. Then, using adj LTC, is west hand a 6-loser hand opposite a supposed 8-loser hand with 4+ trumps, at worst needing 2-2 trump break, and game should be bid at imps? 24 - (8 + 6) = 10 ?
and/ or, should the east hand upgrade to 7 loser adj losers and should, therefore, GF. not sure, is why i posted.
Feb. 12
Donald Lurie edited this comment Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thx for your come-back:
not at all disagreeing with your comment, in fact, I agree with you.
Wondering if that (counter-try) was better bid or if, via adjusted LTC, my hand becomes a 6 loser hand opposite a 4-card LR. and, using same loser count, is the East hand a 7 loser hand. In other words, if i play East for 4 trumps, don't I usually make opposite an 8 loser hand provided trumps are 2-2. 'Tis why I think, at imps, i should at least rebid 3 if not just bid the game and hope for 2-2 trump break at worst.
Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, thx
re 3H as counter-try: see OP. its states that the counter-try was available…..not sure that's the issue, though. Maybe it is: am sure responder/East would have gone had West bid 3.
Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I just checked the results for this board.
There were a few +200s, playing in s, some +170s, and a few +140s. and 1 minus score.
Only 3 out of 14 or 15 pairs were in game, and each played 3NT contracts. With North holding Qxx of s and AJ tight in s, and s breaking 3-3, 9 or 10 tricks became available. That QJx was a nice holding.
.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The responses so far are interesting, and thank you to all who have shared.
This hand occurred during a friendly game on BBO.

I posted this hand because it called into question the meaning of a 3 bid over 2. i.e.: is it natural or a cue bid in support of s, meaning “partner, i want to make the strongest game try I can”. I was also interested in how many would feel that I should have just gambled out a 4 call over 2?
I actually initially did make the 3 “cue bid”. However, when when partner passed, i asked for/ got an “undo” and changed the bid to 3 (it was a game among friends).
I still wonder what the general interpretation of a 3 bid would be? Perhaps a separate poll is in order. What does Advancer do in response to partner's overcall and rebid when Advancer hold long, decent s such as the sample hand Paulo B mentioned.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
semi-spoiler alert
3NT is cold if played from the right side
Feb. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thx for response
question: why should snapdragon here show 5+ s (with tolerance) when you could still bid s at the 1-level, as opposed to double showing 4s (with tolerance)? admittedly, at 2-level things would be different.
just curious.
Feb. 6
Donald Lurie edited this comment Feb. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Out of curiosity (no cats around for the curiosity to kill): what kind of hand would a 2 bid in this sequence show? lho opened, partner overcalled, rho took a bid
Feb. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John:
your voice is superb.
Feb. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I, for one, don't play enough and goodness knows that I don't have the cognitive skills to utilize (or even remember) all of this information. Yet, I would like to have the information available to me if for no other reason than to have some idea what it is that I don't know and have it available should i wish to learn it. Sometimes ignorance is not bliss.
After all, isn't this why school insists on teaching us all that stuff that we're never going to use but at least we know it's there?

To Mike C: Thanks for sharing. I have or am aware of most of that which you list, and know where to find a lot of info on the internet. I might also add justin lall's web site as a resource. I was thinking that CW might have referring to other issues or innovations, and that some may be things that are only permitted at the highest levels of competition.
Now the tricks are getting one's partner to be willing to learn and incorporate the new information, and being able to remember things such as what's been played. But that's a totally different issue.
DHL
Feb. 4
Donald Lurie edited this comment Feb. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chris W represented that there is an ever-increasing skill gap between world class players and other expert players. (I assume that also includes all of us that are not in the expert class as well.) He then represented that “Theoretical advances in both bidding and defensive carding give world class players more tools at their disposal”.

Assuming the assertion that WC players have more tools at their disposal to be true raises the question (at least in my mind) of why is this true. What are these tools and theoretical advances to which Chris W referred: perhaps some examples might be given. And why isn't this new information trickling down/ being made available to the rest of us (and not for a fee). Ideas shouldn't come with price tags. In fact, I might ask why there isn't an active push to disseminate the new theoretic advances and applications any bridge player at any level who is willing to try to learn?
Feb. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom: thx. You know who my “regular” BBO partner is (I think), and he is not a club-level player. Just sometimes has alternative approaches to some things and sometimes has been very creative (in a positive manner).
This isn't about what is commonly played or what the bid is supposed to be. Rather, it's about looking at whether the norm is actually the more beneficial of the two methods.
DHL
Jan. 31
Donald Lurie edited this comment Jan. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
thx R
so have I. it's just that my reg P's different spin on the situation got me to thinking about the sequence and about what the advantages (if any) are to both approaches?
DHL
Jan. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As of this comment, the vote is almost unanimous for a 1 balance (as I expected). I was always taught that re-opening jump-overcalls are intermediate (approx. 11-15, 6-card suit), perhaps even a better hand if 3 of a minor. If this is not the commonly accepted understanding, someone please advise me now.

However, this is not what happened at the table. The person holding this hand, admittedly a less-than-expert player, balanced with 2. Holding something like Kx, Axxx, ATx, Qxxx, i raised to 4. While this contract should have been -1 on the lead of a high and a shift, accidents do happen and the contract was permitted to succeed.

The reason that I posted the hand was greatly influenced by the fact that, when I gave the above hand to my regular partner, he, too, selected a balance of 2. He felt that the hand wasn't good enough to take 2 bids should partner respond to the balance and, that it was likely that we would wind up in 2 anyway should partner respond. One could argue that bidding 2 with such a hand at least makes it more difficult for the opening bidder to make a competitive call below the 2NT level.

Now my regular partner and I don't always agree on certain bidding issues but this one got me to wondering. Which approach rates to yield better results in the long run (at match points, at IMPS, at IMP Pairs)? In other words, daring the question established practice/ general consensus as suggested by results of this OP so far, whether or not playing a re-opening jump-overcall of 2M as intermediate is competitively optimal? (and not just another carry-over from rubber bridge or merely another issue of partnership agreement.) And, which type of hand has a higher probability of occurring: the good wk 2M, or the opening bid with a 6-card suit in the balancing seat?

Appreciate comments/ feedback on benefits and liabilities of both approaches.
TIA
DHL
Jan. 30
Donald Lurie edited this comment Jan. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
what happens is that partner, thinking he is opposite a true or quasi 3-suiter (or at least one where s and s are likely not a major issue: pardon the pun), thought that the AKQx of clubs looked really good and made a move toward possible slam. even 5 has little to no play after a K of lead and the Q being offside.
Jan. 30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12 13 14 15
.

Bottom Home Top