Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ed Judy
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 163 164 165 166
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I did not know (until just now viewing the pre-bulletin) that the price per person per session is $25.00 for the Naional Nail Life Master Pairs (oh, I'm sure it has been disclosed elsewhere for some time). Nevertheless, sticker shock. No need to guess why – but thanks a lot, cheaters!
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On my way.
Reportedly, “Free-Ride” Carts (tip appropriate")at site and around the immediate downtown. Details invited.
Nov. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is timely for me, and perhaps amusing.

I've agreed to play a competent partner's favorite card in an upcoming major event in San Diego. It includes Foster Echo.

It also includes so-called stolen bids as a counter-defense to interventions after our 1NT opening (no, he's not from Florida where the treatment is virtually “standard”). Truth to be confessed, it is “playable.”

He doesn't need “no stinkin' lebensohl” and has mailed me a list of sequences.

3C is a Stayman replacement for a number of interventions. I've queried back:

“What do we do when the 2C bid shows both majors?” I expect him to say that if “I have values in the minors, you must have values in the majors, so I'll bid 3NT.” I'm wondering what he should do if holding only one strong minor – if clubs? if diamonds?

Whatever, I'm going All In! Look for our pictures in the Bulletin.
Nov. 22
Ed Judy edited this comment Nov. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, Thumbs Up for The Common Game!

Just this month, this item was part of the board minutes of our large local club (and one of the largest in ACBLand):

“The game directors proposed our club introduce the
Common Game in the new year. There is no charge for this game by the ACBL. The motion was approved.”

For reasons that are dark and unknown, it has taken quite a while for this to happen.

In my view, there is no good reason for Club management not to require this service for its members.
Nov. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed. I observed this hand at one table and North overcalled 1H over the 1D.

So, the auction began:
1D-(1H)-1S-(Pass)-2D-(Pass)- ?

East, a bonafide expert but playing for the first time with a competent partner, eschewed the technical choice of 3H and bid 3NT.

A zero with the easy club lead. But of course this first-time partnership did win the session :)

I wondered what the opener might have done if his expert partner had bid 3H – 3S or 4D?
3S would have probably saved the deal.
Nov. 21
Ed Judy edited this comment Nov. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Debbie, if so, perhaps BW should review its policies. I've had this warnings more than once and I find them unnecessary.
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm late to this thread and haven't read all comments.

But, as a reference, Steve Robinson's Washington Standard specifies logical treatments for “weak” as opposed to “invitational” sequences for all major suit hands.

I see that the views of a number of commenters above are in sync with his views.
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed, but the time that has elapsed since Bob Heller was deemed President has gone by so fast that it reinforces the notion that this honorary job should be extended or eliminated.

PS: I just got a notice from BW like “this may be inappropriate comment – do you want to continue.”

Perhaps there's an explanation that is beyond me.
Nov. 20
Ed Judy edited this comment Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I recall two references (Robinson being one) who play a jump to 2M as descriptive of a weak two, probably with specs as to holding an A or a K in the bid suit).
Nov. 17
Ed Judy edited this comment Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, Henry – despite the fuzziness, the 4D bid by South was meant to identify either the ace or king (or possibly both) in the diamond suit (and, by inference, nothing in clubs)in his implicit agreement and support for opener's spade suit (his 3S bid).

And, yes – the 4H bid by North was probably superfluous. And, indeed, South had extras but believed that in context of this treatment/convention that 4S would not necessarily deny extras. It would seem to me that a partnership should clarify that point.

If it's deemed by the partnership that South can have extras in this situation, it would seem best that he (the responder) shoud move forward rather than “sign off” and do so (in this case) with their agreed Blackwood bid – rather than resort to something that can muddle the matter.

I also feel, as a principle, that it may be more efficient/logical for a partnership to agree – after a response to their Blackwood bid – that 5NT (if by opener) asks for lowest specific Queen (since all 9 controls are known by him).

Whatever, all of this has been useful. If our partnership had happened to go on to bid the grand, we might never have realized how lucky rather than skillful we were, and would have never had the benefit of this post and comments. My partnership now has more work to do.

After all, isn't this “education” a primary reason for BW?
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And, John, I follow you!
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I only want to add that the context here (control showing after a strong 2C ask) puts a different spin on our usual way of thinking of bidding (or q-bidding) controls. I sense that some highly accomplished players have made comments on this post who are not experienced in the practice of the treatment.

My basic quibble – assuming that North-South had it right in agreeing on spades as the trump suit (which is folly but beside my point) is that 4S by South is not an underbid. What else should he do?

North is in charge – and I wonder, with a differing deal (as Richard might as in days of yore) – simply bid 5S as an inducement to 6S if you have more than you've expressed.
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard,

Perhaps but I believe in this case, it wasn't. I believe the partners were both blind to the possibility that spades wasn't the agreed suit.
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jim, I don't disagree with you and many others that ordinarily 6H asks for a 3rd round control. But all of this bidding is in context of control showing after a strong 2C opener. In that light, isn't it intuitively logical to think that 5NT should ask for a specific queen since it “can't” ask for anything else? My basic point, I think, is that this control bidding structure after 2C sets different parameters as to what we may be accustomed too.
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There appears to be some confusion created by not specifically clarifying “control bids” and “control showing responses.” As noted, my partnership's thinking was half-baked on the usage of control showing responses to strong 2C openings as opposed to typical so-called Italian style control showing bids which some still refer to as cue-bids. We haven't been in any particular hurry to make progress and that's why this discussion has been helpful.

South's initial bid of 2S was not “Robinson” which specifies an Ace-King in the same suit – we had been persuaded by out-of-town experts to use 2S as any AK for three controls with 2NT to specifically show three kings (3 controls) which I now believe to be folly. So, the South bid of 4D was to specifically identify diamonds (not anything in clubs) as either an Ace or a King. The partnership was out-to-lunch on the possibility that spades had not really been agreed as the trump suit.
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
PS: At the OT, a grand was bid (without science) after the opening bid of 1S.
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kieran: South (me) didn't break discipline – he was unsure of the 6H bid (never discussed) and didn't want to risk a disaster; South also bid “only” 4S to return captaincy to North – the bid of only 4S was not meant to be a sign-off and was not so construed. The 4D bid is not “silly” in the context of what the partnership believed to be an agreed suit – but I now recognize the potential folly of that thinking.

I would agree with Yu that North's 4H call was superfluous – perhaps he, too, wasn't sure of the 4D call which was meant to specify the diamond Ace and became assured when he saw the 4S card but I disagree with Yu and others that 4S is an underbid.

Let me add – in the context of control bidding and the assumption that spades can be properly identified as the trump suit (see John Adams above)and with North's knowledge after the 4N response (specifically, the diamond Ace and the K and Q of spades) – couldn't a 5NT bid by North be construed as asking for a specific non-trump queen?

With particular thanks to John among others, partner and I will now be able to clear up some woolly or half-ass thinking on this control bidding business. This discussion has been quite helpful (by the way, we did manage to win this and another one-session swiss this past weekend with compatible teammates).
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Per above, what is that bid that is stronger than 4S?
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, your view helps. But South did not try to sign off with 4S. What are South's options at this point (assuming you don't want to denigrate the auction up to 4H)? To be sure, 6H is a beautiful bid in this particular auction (since 5NT asking for specific kings is superfluous) and I'm delighted to learn that it appears to be mainstream, even if not BWS, if playing control showing responses to strong two club openings.

(The counting tricks business is meant to be an aside.)


Edited to make clear what was only reasonably clear.
Nov. 13
Ed Judy edited this comment Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, Marty, I see your point, and I can now see that Grue switches can have merit – (but what did control folks do before Joe or his father?)

Any mainstream 2C opening is not a godsend – most of us try not to open with a 2-suiter or a void.

I certainly concur with not adopting any convention without a good understanding and I'm still thinking about control steps relative to other choices (none of which are ideal) but I'm not ready yet to throw the water out without the baby or vice-versa :)
Nov. 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 163 164 165 166
.

Bottom Home Top