Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Gábor Szőts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 91 92 93 94
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks to Mats and to the messenger, Peder.
March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I currently play it, the cheaper reverse does not promise one single card in the suit, can be e.g. 3307 (even when not strong enough to force to game).
March 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think opener needs 16 to bid 2. In fact I think a good 14 is more than enough. Why, is it a catastrophe if partner wanted to sign off in diamonds and now has to bid 3? He knew I might have a balanced hand with 4 diamonds, now I have 5 in an unbalanced hand. And if he wanted to sign off with an 8-count including 5 hearts this may be just what he wanted to know to bid game now.
And for the space problem: what do you need the space for when opener has described his hand entirely?
March 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bill and Marty, responder has a 4 bid available for that miracle hand.
March 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
X shows a penalty pass over 1.
March 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As 2 was not forcing, slam is out of the question. Therefore, forcing heart bids are not needed. Responder, with 5 hearts, either passes, bids 3 as an invitation or bids game. With 4 hearts he signs off in 3 or makes some natural invitational bid.
March 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I will have less than 5 diamonds only when I'm going to raise M and want to show where my strength lies.
Feb. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4 just showed a strain in which there might be a profitable save against 4. 5 showed there might.
IMO, if anyone is in a forcing situation here it is the + side but teven that is debatable.
Feb. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South. All bids by North were perfect.
Feb. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael: I could not refer to any partnership experience because that was a first time partnership, we hadn't discussed much and the situation was quite complex (I don't remember exact details but it was about a redouble made in the second round of bidding).
Feb. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you for all these interesting comments.

At the table I did not alert and upon enquiry I told my screenmate we had no agreement. Then I acted assuming that 2NT was for the minors. The opponent called the director and told him I was lying. The director told him that my handling of the situation was in accordance with the rules.

My procedure was based on two previous experiences:
(1) I had been penalized in the past when I told my opponents what I thought a bid meant and when it turned out that I was wrong they claimed misinformation.
(2) At a recent tournament I tried to explain the assumed meaning of a bid by my partner and the opponents stopped me and told me to tell them only what our agreements were.
Feb. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know this player for a long time and I simply could not imagine he intended it as natural. I did not know for sure but if I had to bet I would have bet 2NT was for the minors.
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I must add this was played with screens.
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There was no partnership experience. It was a relatively new partnership and similar situation has never come up.
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The bid is not at all low frequency. The 2NT opening is already frequent enough.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This has been discussed to some detail here at BW, you can do a site search for it.
The most simple approach I use revolves around the majors:
- with one 4+ major, you bid the other major
- with both majors you bid 3 or 3 or 3NT/4 (with 55+)
- without 4+ majors you bid 2, a puppet to 2NT.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As an aside, those who play Bergen raises might shift the meanings of their 3, 3 and 3 responses so that the latter two are spade raises while 3 shows hearts (an idea I found in the Lauria-Versace system card). That way you can have 2 ranges of heart bids in 1 bid, or you can have more flexibility with the follow-ups over the 3 heart bid.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I find it absurd that without a lot of high cards I don't have a natural heart response to 1.
For a heart splinter you may use 3NT, an otherwise pretty useless bid.
And yes, I'd bid 4 with your example hand at any vulnerability. If not for other reasons then in order to avoid the problem the original poster posed.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see the problem. Is pass a logical alternative to bidding game in one of the majors? Definitely not.
Between 4 and 4 there is an easy choice. Why not offer an alternative to 4? Will partner really leave it in with shortness and a good spade suit of his own? Never. He remembers I did not bid 4 in response of 1 so he'll never play me for a good suit.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner knows this as well.
Feb. 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 91 92 93 94
.

Bottom Home Top