Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Harald Berre Skjæran
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree. Or with luck, buy it in a grand after they saved at the 6-level.
April 8, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner bid 5 to bring me in on our decision over 5. I can't have a much better offensive hand than this (a couple more clubs would be better), and thus I bid 6 now. Maybe 6 on the way is even better if partner has 0616 and we make a grand.
April 8, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A treatment I've used with several partners is:
Accepting the transfer shows 3-card support and a holding in RHO's suit that you'd like the opening lead coming up to. xx shows also show 3-card support, but a holding in RHO's suit which suggest it's better to have partner declaring.

This treatment quite often is worth a trick if they lead RHO's suit, or tempo if they don't.

Pass shows a doubleton in partners suit. And super accepts the same as you play without the double.
April 8, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Disagree with those above. I'd open 1. Never liked 1 with 44m.
April 8, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 as NF makes no sense to me. I know there are hands where you'd like it to be NF for sure. But it's far more useful to play it as forcing, to allow you to search both for strain and level. I've always played this and similar sequences as forcing (1m-1M-3m-3M/1-1-2-3/1-1-3-3).
April 8, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree.
April 8, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Deleted after OP changed.
April 6, 2013
Harald Berre Skjæran edited this comment April 7, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My thoughts exactly.
April 4, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 is logically a natural GF. But the suit should be longer and/or stronger. 4m are cuebids, accepting hearts and inviting slam.

I'd bid 4NT as a natural quantitative bid. IMO I'm too strong for 3NT, both due to my general high card strength and good interiors. The T is often a great card too.
April 3, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I played this switch with a former partner a few years ago: 2NT=22-24 and 2=20-21NT or a suited strong hand.

2-2M was a natural sign off vs 20-21, 2 was a waiting bid containing most GF hands and s/o hands not suited for 2M or transfers.

2NT3 was transfers showing (5)6 card suits, opener accepted the transfer with 20-21, thus allowing us to play 3m.

3/ was GF transfers showing a good 6-card suit. Opener accepted to invite slam in responders suit, else bid his on suit/3NT/4M.

The main advantage was the ability to stop in 2M. But we also had an easier way to show a GF responding hand with 4M5+m through the minor suit transfers than standard methods.

Kokish has never been in my bidding methods, since I've generally played some version of Multi 2 with one (or two) strong NT interval(s).
This also let 2-2x-3NT show some hand with nine or ninish tricks.
April 3, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As far as I remember Esko told Peter what he would lead before Peter told him his hand.
April 3, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would NOT bid on the assumtion that pard could bid 4 with that garbage. Obviously Dano knew, and needed two KC to bid slam.
April 3, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I wasn't going to bid 6 vs one KC, I'd not have asked. Thus, there's only two possible actions now IMO; raise to 6 or abstain.
April 2, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Never played 3 as weak here. This hand seems too strong for me, though. Thus, I bid 4.
March 31, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Reading the interview this morning, I never realisere Sabine used the phrase split score. And it's very obvious that she was talking about weighted scores.

As for the ruling, this is in fact a very close decision. As a TD/AC I suppose I would have ruled as the AC under ACBL regulations. Anywhere else I'd have assigned a weighted score. Probably slightly above 50% down one.
March 29, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It doesn't take a genius to find out that north has 5+ spades here. And if you had explained what 2 showed, you'd have avoided much of what happened. Sure, north asking questions out of turn is bad. And there obviously was UI present. But nothing that should prevent south bidding spades. Your bidding tells him that his side holds at least seven spades between them, more often eight.

If you can't accept that people disagree with you, you shouldn't post here. And I really dislike your tone.

You should also accept the fact that Americans in general are unaccustomed to defending Multi. And have problems in bidding sequences that would seem basic even for club players here in Europe.
March 29, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ovunc; if you held the south hand and watched the actual bidding sequence unfold, how many spades would you expect partner to hold? And just forget the fact that he made a seemingly stupid double originally; most people would have overcalled 2 for sure.
March 29, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This really happened. The story is true.
March 29, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the TD got this one right. It seems clear that NS had no experience defending Multi, but that doesn't make a difference to the ruling.

Holding 10 hcp vs a partner who doubled 2, pass isn't a logical alternative IMO.

If you had given a correct explanation of your partners 2 bid, it wouldn't be much problem for south to figure out that north would be a huge favourite to hold 5+ s and a singleton heart. Thus, bidding 3 (or even 4) seems clear.

Playing an (in ACBL) unusual convention, the onus on your side to explain your bids properly is even more important than normally.
March 29, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I ruff and give partner a club ruff.
March 27, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top