Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eric Kehr
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 24 25 26 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Opps have declined to bid despite both of us giving them every chance to, and LHO hasn't bid either. I reckon 1NT should be safe enough.
Feb. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One could conceivably choose Reese's for either.
Feb. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Step-by-step Discarding (by Danny Roth) also discusses discarding in depth. It certainly helped my game.
Feb. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Obviously that is true. But playing 2/1 GF commits you to wrong-siding a load of NT contracts when responder isn't GF! So perhaps it isn't such a big issue.
Feb. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can use 2NT for the hand with 6 and extras. Weak NT hands can go through a 2 rebid, and a very strong NT (without support) can rebid 3NT.
Feb. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But you play 2 as natural and GF so both sides have made exactly one, basically equivalent, descriptive bid each.

If you were really concerned with having opener be able to carry on describing his hand since he has started it, wouldn't you put far more GF hands into the 2 response?
Feb. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't knowing partner is minimum “something of value”?

After 1 2 2 (minimum) 2NT (asking)
Opener can bid 3, 3, 3, 3 or 3NT to give a fairly good description of his shape and strength. Whereas showing shape straight away leaves no room to differentiate the strength.

If you want a bid to show 6 straight away, you can use 2NT.
Feb. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Given the methods, I would have cue-bid 4 after 3NT.

If there's a risk this will be misunderstood, I think 6 is a better bid than 4.
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe partner should just rebid 3NT with that hand.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Every time I talk myself out of pre-empting for some reason or other I end up regretting it.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play at a local club once a week. I go through phases of playing a lot on BBO. I also play a lot against the computer (mainly Jack, occasionally Wbridge)
Jan. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this argument is rather ridiculous.

These things are part of bridge by accident. The inventors of bridge didn't deliberately add these to the game to increase the skill level. And they are only in the rules because the rules need to cover what happens when they occur.

If bridge were invented today as an electronic game without any of these things, it would still be just as great a game (maybe even better), and nobody would be saying “You know what would improve this game? The ability to accidentally not follow suit, that's what.”
Jan. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At this stage, you can ruff a with a high trump. Whether or not South over-ruffs, 3 rounds of clubs throws him in, and he only makes one trump trick, not two.
Jan. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another great benefit of an electronic environment is that people can, in principle, change the graphics of how they see the cards to suit their own personal prefereances.

Want bigger cards? Easy
Want different colours for each suit? Easy
Want the cards displayed separately rather than overlapping, to prevent misclicks? Easy
Want AKQJ displayed in your own language? Easy
etc
Jan. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They’re also getting hammered with my type of hand, and I know partner’s not taking it out, even with a balanced Yarborough.
Jan. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I’ve played online and face to face. Both feel exactly the same to me. Playing online doesn’t feel like playing a computer game to me.
Jan. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, but the auction (assuming sane participants) changes the odds as to whether we are likely to have a fit. After 1 (1) P (3) we are almost guaranteed a fit if we are 4414; if 4th hand bids 1NT, I’m far less confident.
Jan. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did the bidding really start 1 (1) P (1NT) on that hand, with a big diamond fit and no stop?
Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do wonder how often your “big plus” happens though. Partner will very often have a balanced 2 count with a 3343 shape or similar, so you seem destined for a lot of minuses as well.
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since partner couldn't find any bid over 1, it seems unlikely I have enough distribution and strength to want to play in his best non- suit at the 2 level. On the other hand, it's not too hard to picture a hand which has 7 or 8 certain tricks after knocking out their single stop. So penalty (usually based on semi-solid plus a couple of entries) would be best, IMO.

No idea what “Standard” is though.
Jan. 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 24 25 26 27
.

Bottom Home Top