Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Gábor Szőts
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The use of 2m for the 18-19 HCP balanced hands has the advantage that it frees up opener's 2NT rebid which can be used for various hands that are not easy to handle otherwise.
E.g. Bocchi and Madala use it to describe strong one-suiters with or without support in responder's suit.

As to the choice whether 2 or 2 is better used for the 18-19 balanced hand, I think it is very much in the balance. It is not difficult to construct an easy-to-remember responding scheme to 2 which covers practically all hand types with the only flaw compared to Bocchi's 2 that you can't play in 2s.
Feb. 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I think 1 openings that include weak NT hands are optimal for avoiding the preemption that a Precision risks.”

With one partner I used to treat those two-way 1 openings as though they were strong clubs. With good opening strength you can always pass and await developments, or you can double the 1 opening.
Feb. 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a partnership decision. The classic interpretation is “forcing to suit agreement”. In my current partnership, however, I play that it can be weaker than invitational. Doubler's 2M is not forcing, if he wants to insist on game opposite a 8-9 point hand he can jump or cuebid.
3D is 5H5S in my partnership, for lack of a better idea.
Jan. 21, 2014
Gábor Szőts edited this comment Jan. 21, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He should look again.
Jan. 1, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While your article is instructive from the strong clubbers' point of view, it also shows how ineffective that 1 overcall is. If the opponents also followed the principle of bidding their hands to the limit as soon as possible, they would have overcalled 2. Now double with that meagre 5-count is a real stretch, and after a 3 raise both partners will have to exercise great restraint by passing it out. If responder instead chooses to pass, he would never know what to bid after opener doubles a 3 raise.
Dec. 31, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I myself don't know what the right method is. With some partners I play 2/1 and 1 shows 5+ while double shows exactly 4. Sometimes it may get awkward but who cares?
I also play 1=2+ precision with two partners. With one of them I play exactly the same as above, with the other I play double to show 4+, while 1 denies 4. What Gonzalo describes seems to be the current fashion and it may of course be optimal but I play 2 to show a game force in clubs (borrowed from Meckwell) and 2 to be limited, not forcing.
Nov. 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like this weak trumps idea, thanks for sharing it.
Oct. 2, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks all for the replies.
Sept. 30, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To clarify further what I was talking about:

In any situation where only 3 suits are trump candidates, many American experts play this followup:

4: puppet to 4 after which they bid a natural slam try.

4: puppet to 4 which they may pass or bid something to play (signoff).

4/4/4NT: RKC in the lower/middle/Higher ranking of the suits.

I thought 4 and the game bids might be switched, and I was wondering why no one plays it that way.
Sept. 29, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I may not have been clear enough. I'd like a comparison showing that slam invitation through 4c (with direct game bids used as RKC's) is superior to the opposite method (which I have never seen being played) when 4c is a prelude to RKC and direct game bids are natural slam invitations.
4d is a prelude to signoff with both methods.

Thanks anyway for your reply.
Sept. 29, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
'We open virtually all 11-point hands.'

While I can understand the follow-up reasoning based on this premise, I can't understand why we should lower our opening requirements this much. I think it puts too much burden on the 1NT response which should go up to 11 HCP's, while for a balanced game force you'd require 14.
I believe that bad 11 + 13 does not make up for a decent game and the result is most likely a minus score.

This must have a flaw else you would not play it that way.
May 30, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a Create button up above.
May 9, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you.
May 7, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a big club enthusiast I liked the article very much. At the same time it has raised some questions.
I wonder if you use the same 8-step reply structure in a side suit when skipping the 2 trump ask.
Also, if opener, instead of asking for controls, chooses to bid a suit, do you use some step support/strength showing structure?
And third, if you don't mind, what does 1-1-2 mean?
May 7, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Adam and Steve, you presented your case very well, a must-read for those who wish to improve their defensive bidding in this area.

What I still fail to see, sorry that I keep repeating myself, is where you benefit from defining a border under which you are in a forcing situation. As far as I can see all the methods you present can be equally applied if you are not in a forcing situation.

I believe it is a good thing to let the opponents stew in the juice of their 7-card fit on the 2-level when strength between the sides is about evenly distributed. If you bid on in such cases you are taking over the opponents' minus. And if you are short in the opponent's suit you can double for takeout in spite of not being forced to do so.
Feb. 21, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In reply to Adam:
I can't see how treating the situation as nonforcing prevents using Lebensohl. Also, I am not afraid of being passed out with a penalty double hand: if partner is short in their suit he will reopen, if he has game-going values he will again reopen. When he will not reopen is when they are in our suit and we have no game, which is just the situation when we don't want to declare.
Feb. 9, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, why even play forcing to 2? With the take-out double idea you can bid if you wish and pass when in their suit - partner would have doubled (or will double) with a T/O hand of his own, otherwise you are just fine playing a partscore in their suit.
If any one of you is afraid of missing a game because he has extra strength, he can bid even with length in their suit. Otherwise, bidding just saves them.
Feb. 8, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very good hand it is, yes. But it is still a T/O X of spades. As all T/O doubles, this does not guarantee shortness in the doubled suit _if you are so strong that you can handle all responses from partner_. If you have the hand which intended to rebid 1NT and is short in spades, you can now double again. If you have a strong genuine T/O of D's with longish spades, you can now _pass_ and wait for partner to reopen with some strength and short spades. You are not going to miss game if partner passes it out with his 5 HCP's.
Besides, I don't like the ‘very good hand’ idea. Partner will have to guess your hand based on opp's bidding, and I prefer to base my decisions on partner's bidding.
June 2, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The second double is T/O of spades and shows a good hand. As the opponents may be bidding on tram tickets for me this is a Lebensohl situation where 2NT is the preamble to signing off. Therefore I bid 3D here to show some values.
June 2, 2012
.

Bottom Home Top