Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Janusz Lekki
1 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After double, you may play the 3NT from any side :)
As extra bonus, such double may be converted into $$$.
In your previous post you aimed at 3NT and didn't care about playing 2NT.
July 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If we follow your idea, why not to reverse the meaning of 2NT and double? Wouldn't it be much more flexible to double with values (with a stopper or without) and propose a minor contract with 2NT?
Not always you have a stopper in a 5+ suit that was bid and raised. But I agree that such fact maybe should be accented clearly.
I have no clear opinion, BTW I use yet another toy…
July 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was reasoning purely hypothetically.
My intention never was to suggest that it's you who “did not read to the end”. I am sorry if it could be taken like this.

Honestly speaking, absolute majority of my bridge friends think in your style and I must accomodate. But, God, it's so painful sometimes… This discussion has a therapeutic value for me :)
There is some better world somewhere out there.
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In his first statement, DG rather clearly defines the condition:
“I like over their 2M (doesnt matter which M they opened).”

So using this (DG) treatment after Multi or Flannery would be, hm… speaking politely: a proof that you did not read it to the end.
But you may use it against any weak opening where the major suit is known - Muirderberg, Polish 55, also Tartan (if you have NT, Tartan weak option is at 99%), etc.
After Multi, simple scheme works reasonably well, while Flannery calls for other means. All this hardly requires long discussions.

I am aware that “limited processing power and memory storage” is a real factor, but it cannot be an excuse for everything.
This site is BridgeWinners what assumes some struggle :)

Besides, I was pointing out that this convention is simply far better than other treatments listed above, some of them at least as much complex.
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let me cite David Gold from some other thread here:

“I like over their 2M (doesnt matter which M they opened).
3C-forces 3D, can be to play, 3 of their major next is stayman
and others show diamonds.
3D is xfter to other major (room for super accept if they opened 2H).
3H is minors.
3S is clubs (4C by 2N bidder is NF no fit, as is 4C by responder over 3N).
This is not a method I invented something I saw and nicked and think is very simple and very good.”

In my humble opinion this is much better than anything else mentioned here.
June 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
EK: “I’m holding ♠xx ♥AQJxxx ♦ ♣xxxx and double….”

MR: With that hand, you don't deserve to defeat ANY contract.

Right, you should first have a look under the table in search
for a missing card.
June 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dear Etienne, I understand the idea very well. But look, if the responder will bid his M4 he will be the declarer (of course if this suit will be agreed). You will get what you want without any dirty tricks!
Instead of forcing poor declarer to remember the inversion, you may take your destiny into your hands :)
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In this XX=re-Stayman issue I was always wondering why people introduce / inversion in the structure of responses to XX instead of direct bidding of the major four by a responder ? It's faster and simpler.
Is the possibility of garbage Stayman so valuable? Even so, it's easy to design a simple get-out: the simplest is XX = two places to play.
Please note, not only the bidding would be more straightforward but also information leakage would be lower.
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dear colleagues, your speculations are quite off…
It's absolutely obvious the author is asking about uncontested auction: 1nt - 2c and now opener rebids 2nt or 3c showing both majors. Usually 2nt = lower range, 3c = maximum opening.
This extension of traditional Stayman responses 2d/h/s is recommended by some systems, e.g. by Marten's one.
Personally I have no opinion in this subject, but I am nobody :)
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here you are:
http://www.martensuniversity.com/product/martens-system-bidding-like-music/
Martens uses weak NT, but the mechanisms he proposes are universal. I use part of this stuff in a context of 15-17 NT.
Disclaimer: I will not have any benefits from this promotion :)
March 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You may consider Marten's approach Stayman + transfer. You will be able to sell virtually all 5m 4M (31) distributions below 3NT, as well as 5M 4M (31) ones. Moreover, you may bid this way with strong hands or stop in 3 of a minor with weak ones (e.g. 4M 6m).
The price you must pay is really affordable.
But I understand it will turn upside down all your structure :)
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lebensohl after doubled Multi seems to be very helpful and it's recommended by many.
In this particular deal, 3 seems to be a no-brainer, with or without Leb.
March 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play 3N any light splinter, 4C/D heavy ones.
After 3N partner may ask 4C if really interested.
June 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After 3 I'd bid 4NT as a slam invite and the problem is more or less solved. Would it be a RKCB for you ?
Dec. 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I know why, and even I had a (small and weak, but I'm quite prod of it) part in the discussion before this move, some 10 years ago. Władek Izdebski finally decided to choose double checkback because of its simplicity and direct approach, suitable for popular, standard system. Staying in the mainstream of the world bridge was also an important factor.
Oct. 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You're right, I messed it up. Thanks for correction. But I must add that the transfer checkback has been abandoned in his recent books (WJ XXI) in favour of the methods from my comment.
Oct. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Izdebski's treatment is more or less the same as your methods. It's a double checkback where 2d strong rebid after 1c - 1s - 1NT does not contain hearts, as distributions 5s-4h are covered by 1t - 1s - 1nt - 2c - 2d (forced) - 2h (at least one round force).
Oct. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is indeed a great benefit in this switch!
The basis for it is simple: if you have a GF response with 5+ clubs, the opener has almost certainly a weak notrump hand. But if you have GF with diamonds, he may have also a natural club opening. Therefore with diamonds you need more bidding space.
The following, simple structure has been proposed by Polish author Lech Ochrysko:
after 2c (diamonds) - 2d is a weak notrump, 2h/s is a 5c-4M hand (or strong with 5+M, rare case), 2NT is big NT, 3c = 6+ clubs, 3d = 4d-5c no shortness…
You may add more steps if you wish.
Oct. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you for this nice contribution. IMHO the idea is fresh, convincing and simple to implement.
Don't you think, however, that in followups after 2NT (hearts) it would be beneficial to exchange the meanings of 3C and 3S ? This would leave more space for positive unfitted cases, while 3S as positive fitted should be fine, too.
Once more, congrats,
JL
Jan. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Benoit:“Im also convinced that 1D–1H= spades and 1D=1S= hearts is a serious improvement but this is another story”.
I've heard about this switch before, but never could figure out how to proceed further if the responder has both majors (44, 54).
Strong cases may be probably resolved by double checkback, but how to continue with weak or intermediate hands ?
Could you shed some light on possible followups ? How to avoid missing a 4-4 fit in the other major without introducing very artificial structure ?
Nov. 11, 2015
1 2
.

Bottom Home Top