Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eric Dong
1 2 3 4 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Might as well bid 4 if you have a 3.5 bid.
For me, slow 3 demonstrates 2.5 and suggests S to pass. However 4 is LA, hence S bidding 4 is very ethical.
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing forcing pass over 3, I play X as optional penalty. N with strong interest in penalty would have to pass 3. Therefore, S with shortness in facing 3X would decline penalty and bid 3. Serious partnerships need to have discussions on these situations. I would blame this board on the lack of discussion by partnership.
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Obligatory why is this not a bidding poll
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Surely 2NT then 4 has to be a void right? jumping to 5 seems excessive
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Any possibility that EW can get a 4 ruling? I see a possible 4 jump over X of 2 by W. With W's real hand and correct explanation on 2, W who has 5-3-4-1 with a singleton and presumably E is short in might just jump to 4 over 3?
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No way 4 would deny control. Some play 4 as last train and some play 4 as having control and looking for control.

Either way, 4 shows control, and 4 denies control.

Therefore, it is totally normal for the pair to miss AK in , and 4 conveys that information. If responder decides to bid 6 and it makes under a lead, then it cannot stand.

Unless the hesitation was made by opponents instead of the 2 opener of course.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why? because you forget to bring a deck of cards but everyone has their phone/tablets?
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What I am thinking of is saving up sequences so I can play 1M - 3m as natural invitational or fit jump. Combining GF and inv sequences would definitely have some sort of negative impact even if we could minimize it, because the bid is now less clearly defined. But is the alternative worth it?
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play this depending on vulnerability.
X when vul is lead directing, do not lead clubs.
X when nv is competitive, invitation to compete to 4.
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fair argument, I guess I am on the aggressive side of game bidding, or I am on the conservative side of bidding 2.
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks. Really like this idea. I was thinking along the term of Bergen could be limit+ but have a very specific shape if GF. Now I think hand strength could also be taken into consideration, and making Bergen a non-continuous strength of hands sounds really good.
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
do you mean 2? if p bid 2 I'm in game force and I can bid 2 with 4.
If p bid 2 I can bid 3, also GF.
Oct. 9
Eric Dong edited this comment Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Depends on the whole hand, bidding sequence, agreed method of leads, vulnerability, method of scoring, etc.
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am strong enough to double and not worry about my off-shape hand.
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does 3 create GF?
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
does 3 show extra or Force to game?
Sept. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 denying Hx or xxx in is what I play over 2NT. Therefore I would just keycard and if my p isn't Aceless and go 6. if p has 1 Ace he has the A

But I think some form of Ace or KC asking with 4/4/4 is beneficial for this kind of situations.
Sept. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard R. If you agree to open at 3rd seat with 10 count, then it's as often you have 10-bad12 as good12 to 14. Not to mention some people agree to open some 8 count these days. So yes, partner is assumed to be weak and should bid over 1NT if s/he hold 13-14.
Sept. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unpopular opinion: I would have done the exact same thing as N did.
1NT for me shows a maximum hand (10-11HCP), good stops and tolerance, which I'm surprised that the majority here thinks 1NT is an underbid.
Opener with actual sound opening values can always X or bid over 2, there is no need for me to balance when opener holds 10 count 2-5-3-3.

Opps have the advantage of holding the best suit (), I won't fight for the contract unless p is shown to have actual strength.
Sept. 20
Eric Dong edited this comment Sept. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What does 3 show?
Sept. 19
1 2 3 4 5
.

Bottom Home Top