Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ed Judy
1 2 3 4 ... 124 125 126 127
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
JG above:

“I play inverted minors as game forcing with criss-cross for a limit raise (1♣ - 2♦ or in your example, 1♦ - 3♣) ♠xx ♥xx ♦AKJx ♣J10xxx”

This seems to be picking up steam. Simple for clients to play with pro or mentor.
14 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, if it were not simply “the minors,” OP would presumably have advised.
Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Without discussion, I would assume (with most partners):
3C is puppet stayman with major suit transfers to 3M or 4M.
3M to play.
No Smolen.
Double penalty-directed.
Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, I'm with you.

I also like Kit's:

Non-jump: Q-bid
Single jump: Splinter
Double jump: Exclusion

Agreeing/willing to risk the 5-level (when it's right) with a splinter is quite similar in concept as mainstream 5-level major suit jump (e.g., 1S-(P)-3S (invite)-(4H)-5S.

I have a particular fondness for a self-splinter in an auction like 1NT-2D-2H-4D (with a void or a stiff Ace, you can have a problem).

Now and then, partner will super-accept 3H after 1NT-2D. Now, a clear agreement would be needed and my rule (until now) has been no 5-level splinters. I suppose the default agreement should be a splinter rather than Exclusion.
Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
More words of wisdom from Eddie Kantar:
Search “Good advice to give your partner”

You'll quibble with a couple to suit your own needs.
#55 IS ESPECIALLY INSTRUCTIVE.

You might be able to reach the pdf at this link.
http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/teachers/celebritylessons/52Facts.pdf
Feb. 24
Ed Judy edited this comment Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In and out of sandwich position :)
Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You don't care.
Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A clarification:

Here is Gene's recent list (date not known to me). Below that – and repeating above – is his previous list, circa 1999.

Gene Simpson's “Top 25 Rules For Winning”

(Gene Simpson is a nationally renowned bridge expert. The amazing thing about this list is how few of his 25 rules are bidding systems.)
1. Get a good partner
2. Count-Count-Count
3. Balance when appropriate
4. Count winners and losers on each hand
5. Use your instincts
6. Make takeout doubles
7. Learn basics
8. Know your convention card
9. Forget last hand
10. Concentrate
11. Table time
12. Show distribution when possible
13. Bid 3 No Trump
14. Read bridge books/talk to experts
15. Hold hand back/especially against pros
16. Hold up trump ace
17. Don't over ruff with sure trump winner
18. Give partner their ruff-he/she will appreciate this
19. Return partners lead unless you know what to do
20. Don't lead aces
21. Don't under lead aces
22. Stop dummy from ruffing on defense
23. Play convertions only if you fully understand convention
24. Ruff losers in dummy on offense
25. Balance

Gene's list, circa 1999:

25. Make Takeout Doubles
24. Overcall light at one level
23. Understand forcing passes
22. Balance
21. Know when and what kind of gerber you are playing
20. Hold up when you hold the trump ace
19. Don't overruff with sure trump winner
18. # Give partner their ruff-he/she will appreciate this
17. Return partners lead unless you know what to do
16. Don't lead aces
15. Don't underlead aces
14. Show distribution first
13. Know your methods
12. Learn basics
11. Keep head above table
10. Hold hand back-especially against pros
9. Count winners and loser on every hand
8. Don't overthink
7. Forget last hand
6. Table time
5. Read bridge books
4. Concentrate
3. Use your instincts
2. Count-Count-Count
1. Pick a good partner or teammates-hire a professional
Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Speaking of top tip lists, here is a link to Gene Simpson's original list for Top 25 Rules for Winning Bridge (a recent revision is much the same but I can't seem to get a paste for you to link to). Gene is probably unfamiliar to many BW readers – he's a long-time Californian professional player (and a delightful chap).

25. Make Takeout Doubles
24. Overcall light at one level
23. Understand forcing passes
22. Balance
21. Know when and what kind of gerber you are playing
20. Hold up when you hold the trump ace
19. Don't overruff with sure trump winner
18. # Give partner their ruff-he/she will appreciate this
17. Return partners lead unless you know what to do
16. Don't lead aces
15. Don't underlead aces
14. Show distribution first
13. Know your methods
12. Learn basics
11. Keep head above table
10. Hold hand back-especially against pros
9. Count winners and loser on every hand
8. Don't overthink
7. Forget last hand
6. Table time
5. Read bridge books
4. Concentrate
3. Use your instincts
2. Count-Count-Count
1. Pick a good partner or teammates-hire a professional

Another delightful chap, Californian Eddie Kantar, is well-known to you and a master at creating top tip lists–visit his web site – “Warm-Up Tips” is a must read unless you're happy being a average player.

I hope others will chip in with their favorite lists.
Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Henry, I think that is how many advanced players would so bid. Others, might start with 3S. Some bonafide experts would not bid 3S since it is not a first-round control. Other expert partnerships, such as Kit's, might proceed and find the slam as he has detailed. It would be of interest to “plant” such a deal in, say, the final round of the Blue Ribbon and appraise the contracts and results. We can only speculate – my guess in about 10-15%. What's yours?
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Right, Paul – no one on the show called him by his first name!
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. Is anyone here familiar with Rich Waugh?
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I confess that 4S didn't occur to me since my agreement with partners is that we avoid 5-level splinters (I know that some don't.) I'm sure other examples could be so construed but you often have the problem of possible confusion between a splinter and a first round control bid after a major suit agreement. I suppose some of the confusion would go away if you did not play some form of Exclusion BW. A lot of work for less than an every day non-pro partnership to sort out.
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff, highly unlikely that South would go slamming with two suits not under control.
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, yes - but 4D is slammish and tells partner of weakness and strongly implies that spades are “under control.” I think the telling point for 3S is that after 3S-4C-4D-4H, south could bid 5D and allow North to make a final decision.
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Now I get it.

I go back to the TV guy whose first name as a character was famous for his occupation – sewer worker. :-)
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Strange, nothing like that for me, Jeff.
Who's McAfee?
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paulo, Paul and others have it right– this is “bridge” not a convention.

I believe “Blackwood” above is used in a generic sense – not as specifically Easley Blackwood. Perhaps it shouldn't be so used. When I hear something like “I trotted out Old Black” I assume that it could be any form of often used ace or key card conventions including some form of Exclusion Blackwood.
Feb. 23
Ed Judy edited this comment Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That makes good ethical sense, and I can buy it behind screens.
But what is to prevent an “unscrupulous” pair from randomly doing it or something like it more than once and not so advising the opponents?

Another question: Would it make any difference if their cards were not identical?
Feb. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, here is LAW 75 in its entirety. I'm not sure how it relates to the situation I described. I haven't yet looked at 16A or 73C.

Regardless, I'm bewildered as to why declarer is not required to inform the opponents of the “misunderstanding” (that may not be the right word) prior to the lead.

——


LAW 75 MISTAKEN EXPLANATION OR MISTAKEN CALL
After a misleading explanation has been given to opponents the responsibilities of the players (and the Director) are as illustrated by the consequences of this following example. North has opened 1NT and South, who holds a weak hand with long diamonds, has bid 2, intending to sign off. North explains, however, in answer to West’s inquiry, that South’s bid is strong and artificial, asking for major suits.
A. Mistake Causing Unauthorized Information Whether or not North’s explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement, South, having heard North’s explanation, knows that his own 2 bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is “un- authorized information” (see Law 16A), so South must be careful to avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information (see Law 73C). (If he does, the Director shall award an adjusted score.) For instance, if North rebids 2NT, South has the unauthorized information that this bid merely denies a four-card holding in either major suit. South’s responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values.
Chapter VII – Proprieties
91
Chapter VII – Proprieties
B. Mistaken Explanation
The actual partnership agreement is that 2 is a natural signoff; the mistake was in North’s explana- tion. This explanation is an infraction of law, since East–West are entitled to an accurate description
of the North–South agreement. When this infrac- tion results in damage to East–West, the Director shall award an adjusted score. If North subsequently becomes aware of his mistake, he must immedi- ately notify the Director. South must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues. After the final pass, South, if he is to be declarer or dummy, should call the Director and must volunteer a correction of the explanation. If South becomes a defender, he calls the Director and corrects the explanation when play ends.
C. Mistaken Call
The partnership agreement is as explained — 2 is strong and artificial; the mistake was in South’s call. Here there is no infraction of law, since East–West did receive an accurate description of the North– South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North–South hands. (Regardless of damage, the Director shall allow the result to stand; but the Director is to presume mistaken ex- planation, rather than mistaken call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.) South must not correct North’s explanation (or notify the Director) imme- diately, and he has no responsibility to do so subse- queenly.

Corrected to add all of LAW 75 (A,B and C).
Feb. 22
Ed Judy edited this comment Feb. 23
1 2 3 4 ... 124 125 126 127
.

Bottom Home Top