Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Gábor Szőts
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Joshua, what I wanted to say is that this tempo problem is inherent to all inv+ sequences, and I would not want to increase the number of situations when that occurs.
I have read some pairs, either for this reason or some other, distinguish between invitational and GF hand by using different bids when possible, e.g. over 1-(1) 2 is limit raise while 3 is the GF raise.
Aug. 18, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To Dean Pokorny:
(a) I don't think 2 denies the 7th card.
(b) You can use 3NT as a spade splinter.
© Can be a correct evaluation of a hand.
(d) It is already NF, although invitational for most people, I guess.

Anyway, if you would gladly bid 1-1-2-2 with the weak, 7-card spade hand, what's the problem with bidding 2 immediately?
Aug. 17, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In reply to Joshua Donn:
“- Play 3♣ inv+ in diamonds, 3♦ inv+ in hearts, 3♥ inv+ in spades, 3♠ GF no fit. Transfers.”
I do not like this inv+ method. If partner hesitates then signs off I am going to have an awkward time explaining my game bid with a borderline hand.
The first method you suggest seems far superior.
Aug. 17, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit, does this concept apply to other sequences as well, e.g. 1-1-2, with 3-level bids being game forces and 2 being any invitation?
Aug. 17, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If spades are 3-0 then 5 goes down 3.
July 18, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5 is a bid I used to make now and then, so I can sympathize with West. I guess his intention was to deprive NS of space for exploring slam, a goal which could hardly have been achieved by a pedestrian 4.
July 18, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If it cannot be proven that Lebanon failed to show up for political reasons (in which case they should be disqualified) the normal procedure seems to me a 0 for Lebanon and the best possible score for Israel (as David suggests).
It is not the EBL's task to compensate for a team's disadvantage caused by internal political reasons, however sad it is if Lebanon are ordered by their government not to show up against Israel.
Moreover, if it seems a regularity that Lebanon somehow always fails to show up against Israel, EBL should draw the consequences and not allow them to participate at all.
June 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
25th June is Statehood Day in Croatia. Maybe the organizers decided that to have a free day on that day is not the best choice as all shops are closed. Just a guess.
June 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I saw it on their CC for Lille. To quote:
“Pass/X inversion applies 1-4+, or other high level F situation after 1 opening.”
Well, perhaps it does not mean it is a forcing pass situation.
June 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks all for your valuable comments.

At the moment we play this situation as forcing, with X for takeout-ish.
BTW, I believe most top American pairs (Meckwell for sure) play this as a forcing situation.
June 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With most partners I play 3 as serious. I used to play it as showing control after which partner's 3NT was serious. It was never my choice because I still don't know which one is superior.
June 2, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's another reason why 2NT is superior to 2. Responder can go into the tank for as long time as he wishes.
May 31, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just do not play them.
May 29, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have been using this super-accepting method for several years now with my partners. The only difference is that we always super-accept with 2NT.
In fact, you can use 2NT to super-accept with a minimal but good-looking hand. 3 over that could be used as a game invitation. You don't lose the long suit slam try by that, because you can restransfer, then bid your side suit (true, at the 4 level, but I don't think that extra level is needed here). If you have a short suit, you can jump in it over 2NT.
May 29, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That the play was difficult enough with this decent dummy clearly shows that 2NT was not an underbid.
Also, 2NT was by far the best choice. Describes strength and orientation in one, and even with a 5-3 spade fit 3NT may turn out superior. 2 is hateful, why create a nebulous situation when you ‘know’ where to go. 2 carries the danger of a raise on 2 cards, or a minor rebid which endplays us into 3NT and partner might think our heart guard is suspect.
What I did not like is the abrupt end of the story. I am missing the reasoning that made you make the winning decision. Yes, if 3 was from a 32 doubleton, E might have bid 2 but only might. Kxx, QJxxxx, Ax, K10 is not a tempting 2 bid.
May 27, 2014
Gábor Szőts edited this comment May 27, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At Greco's table Pepsi overcalled 1, and over Hampson's 1 Seamon bid 2. The high club lead together with the spade void pinpointed Pepsi's distribution as exactly 0562, so Greco practically played the hand double dummy.
In my opinion it makes little sense to ‘disturb’ a strong club with low level overcalls on weak hands. If you have no chance to declare the hand, make preempts or keep quiet.
May 15, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with you. Unfortunately I chose the agressive 3 at the table. Partner bid 3 and I was cornered into bidding 4. This went down 3 (our last makeable contract was 3).
May 8, 2014
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please note that not only J but also AK was needed to make game, without the latter S would have 2 heart losers.
I would have bid 4 as South just because game seems close and how could partner tell what values I need.
I would also have bid 4 as North. For me 3 would have meant that partner was asking if my club bid would provide a parking place for his club losers. He is not looking for the K, for example. Nor for the J, so I would have bid 4 without that card as well (and gone down, of course).
So in my view both partners were at fault, roughly equally. I award some self-execution points to South, though.
May 6, 2014
Gábor Szőts edited this comment May 6, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very good question. You hold a hand with only 4 losers but it is the hand to which partner may contribute some further losers. Even a good card and some stopper won't make game so let's see if partner can make another noise.
May 5, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top