Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ercan Cem
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If were to go back that far, I would refer it as Precambrian Era.
Sept. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Classically, three notrump rebid shows 15-17 HCP, and two notrump rebid shows either 12-14 or 18+ HCP (if the latter, opener will bid over three notrump). In theory, both rebids promise 5-3-3-2 shape with stoppers in the unbid suits, and doubleton in responder's suit.

But this structure is also problematic. To start with, some hands in the required range will lack a stopper in the unbid suit. (Worse: should one assume queen-third as a stopper?) Further, when opener jumps to three notrump, responder will not know whether opener has fast tricks, or soft values; or whether he has an honor in responder's suit.
Sept. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Steve In a BWS panel, if two hearts gets even one vote with that example hand of yours, I would be surprised. It is either one notrump or two diamonds. Two hearts is not even wrong.
Aug. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On that layout the declarer would have played on hearts before diamonds.
Aug. 21
Ercan Cem edited this comment Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you.
Aug. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also checked the index. It must be the case that they did not change the pair name, even though they did not participate.
Aug. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gordon: Sorry. I now see why confused I you, and everybody else. Fixed it.
July 30
Ercan Cem edited this comment July 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I subscribe to the idea that if one is guaranteed to have another turn in the bidding, one can make a invitational (or limited in high card points) bid, and then accept his own invitation.

Simple example: Suppose 3M-2 over partner's 1M opening shows mixed raise, say 6-8 HCP. Suppose partner is able to inquire whether my raise includes a shortness, or even a void. With something like,

Kxxxx Qxxx J10xx,

why should I preempt the bidding, with, say, a four-spade raise. If partner bids three spades, to play, I of course accept my own invitation.
July 29
Ercan Cem edited this comment July 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry assumes that hand bids three notrump over one heart. I guess.
July 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve: As long as what you state is a partnership agreement, it is okay. But if the discussion is whether it is more logical or not, I'd say:

1. Your proposed style puts too much emphasis on game contracts (considering that both opponents are bidding).

2. How would you handle your example hand after, (1) — Dbl — Pass — 1 // Pass — 2? (I suppose you agree with one spade). You ought to play three diamonds as forcing in this sequence also, else you need to either cuebid or bid something other than three diamonds.

3. Nonetheless, if someone can provide three examples from high-level expert game where strictly forcing is superior to not forcing, I am willing reconsider my stance.

(4. I am really curious about those two deals where we missed four spades or six diamonds and played in three diamonds.)
June 15
Ercan Cem edited this comment June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Though one spade limits South's hand, it does not strictly limit it.
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Naturally, it all depends on the absolute minimum North can have in this sequence (that South volunteered a bid). South's bidding is consistent with, say, Kxxx (x)x Kxxxx xx(x). And North can have, say, 3=3=5=2 | 3=4=5=1 | 3=4=4=2, with a 17-18 count. South's three diamonds did not promise any more than what he already promised, thus treating it as forcing makes little sense.
June 15
Ercan Cem edited this comment June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Suggesting, but not guaranteeing, four hearts” part makes it slightly problematic. If it guaranteed four-plus hearts, then “extra values/game try” would be logical. Now, it is reasonable to play it as penalty.

Does the initial double at least promise three hearts? If not, then playing the second double as penalty looks like the best option.
June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(1) I'd never judge partner for a swindle like that. He had limited time to sort things out, and there was the added pressure of playing in the trials. Plus, one should be respected for at least putting his plan into practice despite the obvious risk that he could end up with an egg on his face while the whole world is watching.

(2) There is no such thing as making such risky plays and coming out on top all the time. Further, suppose a somewhat similar situation occurs again, and you win some finesse (or whatever) and you know that it is extremely unlikely that the player on your right ducked it, and you need to make a plan based on that information. Well, against Wooldridge now you know that that reasoning is not that straightforward. So, in time, his duck will come back with interest one way or another.
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps, Zia's comment—just bid four clubs—is the worst. If he thinks three spades cannot be natural after the three-diamond jump response, and had to be showing spade control (spade ace?), then he should have suggested his partner to jump to six hearts, trusting Zia to bid the grand if he happened to also hold the heart ace or king.
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(1) A two-club opening is premature, so much that had this been given to BW panel, I bet there would be at least one panelist who would advocate rebidding two clubs over one spade response.

(2) Without specialized methods, it is not easy to bid the slam confidently. It is the sixth heart in partner's hand that makes the slam desirable. Give him more picture cards but one less heart, it is not so good now. With one less heart, even five hearts is not a lock, so it is not free to probe for slam at the five level.

(In my view, those who make the responder jump to five hearts over three notrump are suffering a heavy having-seen-both-hands syndrome.)
May 29
Ercan Cem edited this comment May 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well said, Mike. The problem is that when dealing with shameless person(s), words have zero force. G.R. has proved that no matter who thinks what of him, he feels zero shame.

Bridge federations along with world class players must either force WBF to resign, or establish an alternative WBF (and effectively force the current WBF to eradicate).

We should start discussing about how to establish an alternative WBF so that a whole federation does not become the puppet of such corrupt, immoral, unabashed people again.
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, but irrelevant.

After major suit agreement following a two-over-one response, many pairs treat three notrump as some form of S3NT. So, it may the case that responder has values in hearts and/or in spades but lack the required strength to bid three notrump. The point is, in the context of Last Train, skipping a step or steps does not indicate a control in the bid suit if that suit happens to be one step below the game contract. The only indication, obviously, is that the it denies controls in the skipped suit(s).
May 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Who says four diamonds cannot be Last Train? What if responder has a useful hand with values in hearts and spades? Or, say 4-4-3-2 with A-K-Q-x in hearts.
May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rather, not bidding three diamonds with that holding is unacceptable.
April 14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
.

Bottom Home Top