Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ed Judy
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 255 256 257 258
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps echoing Dave, it seems to me that even the big boys in Acbland haven't quite yet figured out how best to launch a defense against the multi 2D.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I sense complexity :)
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Quite helpful, per Rodwell treatment.
A critical question is whether through 2H or 2S or something else.

Critical questions also include after what does 4th chair's bid coney/
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
MR, for sure. But Jan's full method, particularly with some of the tweaking comments, begins to edge the method into complexity for many less than fully-experienced partnerships.

The semi-standard 3344 method, aka “Goldilocks Spiral” is certainly inferior but playable and more than enough for many.

With “GS 3344” I now see a useful tweak, thanks to Jan:
Use 3m for opener’s minor and Min hand; 3Om for 3-card Max (can play in 3m in opener’s minor and lessens opportunity for a double of 3C by initial 4th chair.)
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Most admirable post.

I still like (after responder's 2nd bid) for opener to jump to 4x to show a singleton along with 4-card support.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Danny or other: Do we know if 1NT is “permitted?”
Feb. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Only 2 years ago it would seem.
Feb. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chris, 2C (?) is not forcing in any American system I know of, including BWS. Of course it's wide range, responder “strains” to not pass.
Feb. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Particularly so, since there have been 3 passes and this is imps.
Feb. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Finally, the Super Bowl score is at lesst 3-3.
Feb. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3NT to 2NT works well when both partners forget.
Jan. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Joe, I often don't know what Randy is talking about either. Frequently, he doesn't “position” his views and he writes in disjointed phrases. Perhaps, there is some kind of explanation. Buy him a beer sometime :)
Jan. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Correction of a sort: KI is open chart; not basic or basic+.
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ken, seems to me you’ve worked out a very reasonable structure.

As your partnership matures, you might want to consider adding these two BWS agreements.


“Texas (four-level) transfers, after which four notrump is Key-Card Blackwood and a new-suit bid is Exclusion Key-Card Blackwood;

Jacoby (three-level) transfers, after which a notrump bid or a new-suit bid is natural, a self-raise to the four-level is a slam-try, and a new-suit jump is an autosplinter (a one-suiter with shortness in the bid suit)”


If you’re now playing Stayman after a 1NT for weak hands, you might want to specify those for after a 3C Stayman bid to 2NT.

Another idle bid for most is 4S to NT. (I believe David Yates or Gary Hann might have some experience in that department.)

After 1NT, a partnership can cover a range of hands for 5-5+ in the majors: weak to play, invitational, game force and slammish. Not so after 2N. Perhaps a worthwhile trade-off for 4C to 2NT (rather than slammish for clubs) is to develop a slammish structure for a major suit slam including the option of 6-key card responses to 4NT (too intricate for me, but finding good slams at imps is particularly rewarding for young tigers).
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike Becker wrote above:

“We both had mixed feelings.”

“We” meaning my father and me.

I guess this says a lot.
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
DC: No “big” flood in late sixties.
The recent Horn Lake flood might have wiped out some long ago records. I'm not aware of any specific statement that the ACBL has ever released regarding lost stuff.

https://www.weather.gov/lix/ms_flood_history
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RW: Doesn't seem clear that the ACBL was even officially involved. Simply, perhaps, an “ad hoc committee” with Manhattan roots.
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ooooh Ray, wicket shot :)
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barbara: “Never complain, never explain.”
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In first chair, I would pass.
Jan. 27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 255 256 257 258
.

Bottom Home Top