Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Gábor Szőts
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Double did not occur to me. Do you regard your hand too strong for other actions?
April 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pass showing a stopper is a very good idea. A follow-up I like is this:
Pass with a stopper, then bid your normal response over the redouble or pass for business if your stopper happens to be long, strong clubs.
Transfer immediately to your intended response without a stopper, that is XX=no major, 2=s, 2=s.
April 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can play that 2NT is pupStay, bidding 3 (sign-off or game force) or 3 (invitational, not forcing) with diamonds. Eating your cake and have it, too.
If you think you must have the 55 minor game force, put it in 2, later bidding 3.
April 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my view there should be a method allocating responder's singleton. Without that you won't always know to accept or not, whether via a coded or not coded way.
April 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think there is a standard agreement here.

To start with, I'd recommend to use the 3 bid only without a 3-card M, so that you won't have to bother with 4-3 (5-3) major games. You can put (5530) distributions into the 3M bids.
With this presumption you could use 3 to ask for partner's short suit.

As for the 3M bids, I believe the best treatment is to jump in the 3-card M, not in the singleton. This way you can show interest in the major by bidding the other major, you can't do the same after 3 showing shortness.
Here the simplest and still effective continuation seems to me to bid 4m as a choice if you cannot stand 3NT. Partner can relay (kickback) for aces over that.
In effect you either bid 3NT or select one of partner's suits and leave the rest to him.

BTW, I can't see why you have two bids for 55 minors. You overburden your 2NT bid for apparently no gain.
April 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the WBF CCE (World Bridge Federation Convention Card Editor) they use (4432) for any had with that shape, 3442 for exact order, while 35(32) for the third hand shape.
I have been quite used to that.
April 19, 2015
Gábor Szőts edited this comment April 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd pass in any form of scoring. Can't expect partner to stop everything and contribute 4 tricks. 2NT might have been a stretch anyway.
April 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that on averages this XX is best played as at least invitational values and a consent to play it if opener has some diamonds.
When opener has denied 3 hearts it becomes less likely that responder will have secondary diamonds.
My reopening scheme over that XX would be (have to discuss with partner!):
2: the only weak bid
2NT, new suits, 3: invitational but not willing to play 2XX
XX: INV+, at least 2 diamonds
April 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a non-native speaker of English I often find it difficult or even impossible to decode such abbreviations. Of course I can understand things like GF, RHO, BAL, SPL which are technical bridge abbreviations. The problem is with abbreviations that represent expressions (such as PP, NOS, AI) which are not (could conceivably used in totally non-bridge context).
Even OP is a problem for me.
I'd like to ask you to exercise some mercy. As a suggestion, if you use e.g. UI several times in a post, please explain it when first used.
And please no ur instead of you are.
April 10, 2015
Gábor Szőts edited this comment April 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Matthew, you want to deprive yourself the entertaining value of the nonsense the opponents talk.
I admit, though, that it can be tiresome after a point. Change please!
April 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does the meaning of your partner's 1NT opening vary according to the hand you actually hold?
April 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Gary.
I believe this particular situation provides us with an unexpected extra possibility. We don't have to be afraid that the RDBL will be passed out, so we can pass it whenever we have a very weak hand. So if we bid 2 immediately, we do promise something - at least a fair suit with a couple of HCP's. That's why I think that we should treat this delayed 2 as forcing, e.g. to 2NT as though it were an ACOL two-over one.
To tell the truth, afterward I discussed the situation with partner and he did not feel 2 would have been forcing.
April 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“We play that bidding immediately is weak, and passing, then bidding is stronger.”
My partner and I have the same agreement.
In my view, one of the fundamental questions here is whether 2 (instead of 3) would be forcing in this situation.
April 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. Do we need laws to identify a cheater?
April 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can't be serious. If I am there asking for an explanation of the bidding at the wrong moment, OK, that happens. But later I don't stand up and say it was me who spent the time? Just sit there sullenly and enjoy the benefits? I can't imagine anyone doing that in true faith.
April 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A non-bridge reason: Yesterday, in a highly competitive situation the tray did not want to return to our side. My partner simply said loudly: toilet break here. Seems an obvious solution to me.
April 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To Joerg's case: I find it unbelievable that you had that ruling against you. Apart from what Kit says, I think E ought to have had stated that it had been him causing the delay. What he did was blatant cheating, IMO.
April 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At the table I had the impression that a semi-passive heart lead cannot hurt since I'm going to regain the lead with A early.
Alas, early came at trick 10 after declarer cashed his 9 tricks in clubs and hearts.
Partner had Qxxxx and out.
April 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you, Suv, this looks promising. And practically the system I play recently. How lucky!
April 5, 2015
Gábor Szőts edited this comment April 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To me the best solution seems to be to treat this 3 bid as forcing to 3 unless the opps outbid us in game in which case it is forcing to double.
You can even extend this treatment to other similar situations, perhaps making restrictions depending on vulnerability.
April 3, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top