Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jeff Sapire
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 17 18 19 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, have a look below at the link to Justin Lall's article; it may change your mind.
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was given a link to an article by Justin Lall, called ‘A Good Convention’, where he deals with this exact issue.

https://justinlall.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/a-good-convention/
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Definitely easier, but I'm not sure about being more effective, Michael.
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, you clearly raise a good point about O not always wanting to take 3 bids with a 6-4 minimum, but I prefer sticking to Michael Rosenberg's approach; to show the 2nd suit after a 1NT response (we're not talking about hand types where 1 suit is particularly bad e.g. AKJ10xx Kx Jxxx x)
Nov. 11
Jeff Sapire edited this comment Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Comments noted Yuan; perhaps most people would prefer simple transfers.
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I understand that Gazilli does take care of some of the hand types, but I wonder how many people play it? (Not that they would necessarily want to play this instead, I understand. But I still think there's a gap that needs to be filled.
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Right about the principle, Ronald.
I decided not to add any examples to an already lengthy post; perhaps it would have been better to have done so.
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michal, my apologies for overstepping the mark.
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This comment has been marked as inappropriate by the moderator(s).
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Stick to scientific papers then. Especially if you haven't anything constructive to say.
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bridge World Standard 2017 defines 5332 as balanced. I have no doubt that it has been this way for quite a long time now.
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought that ‘semi-balanced’ refers specifically to hands that aren't balanced (4333 or 4432 or 5332) but to hands with 2 doubletons (5422) or even 6322 (though I'm not sure if the last-mentioned is agreed-upon by the expert community as being in the same category).
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If so, what's the best use for a redouble? So far there's been only 1 vote for it, so the view is that either it's ‘to play’, not SOS, or they'll take their chances in 2x if it gets passed out (unless partner can rescue themselves with say 5=0=4=4 shape or perhaps 6-4 in the black suits).
Oct. 14
Jeff Sapire edited this comment Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No I didn't think that a whole bunch of people would change their opinions within a month. Did it occur to you, that maybe, just maybe, I perhaps hadn't seen those other threads? On top of which, there where 217 votes (and no moans), so people were still interested in the question.

Another thing, for what it's worth, the first Link has Precision as an option, so that's altogether different.

But thanks for the links anyway.
Sept. 27
Jeff Sapire edited this comment Sept. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can you post a link to it, Leonard?
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Now that Messrs. Rosenberg and Woolsey have voted (forcing and semi-forcing respectively), perhaps they would consider having a debate, with their views of the pros and cons. (I recall a most interesting thrust and parry in an old Bridge World, between Jeff Rubens and Ron Klinger, debating the pluses and minuses of Fast Arrival).
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With say x AQJxx KJ10xx AJ don't you just bid 3NT?
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In a Bridge World of the 60's (or maybe early 70's) there was an article on Restricted Choice (I'll try find it).
It ended with a remark something like ‘if you disagree with this, please come up to our offices sometime, but bring your cheque book.’
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
'This write-up makes it sound like winning the club ace was an error.'

That was not the intention, and it should never have been construed as such. I clearly inserted the GIB information purely for the double dummy analysis, without any suggestion that east had misplayed the hand.
July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I recall reading about it in a Bridge World over 20 years' ago.
I could be wrong, because the example below doesn't have partner showing shortage in my first suit, but I think it could apply here too.

xxxxx xx AQ AKxx
1-2; 2NT-3; 4 (you had to rebid 2NT because 3 would have shown extra values).
Now, the impossible jump to 4 shows an honourless suit.

I have never used or seen one since - seems to be another of those snazzy theoretical treatments with almost non-existent practical application.
July 13
Jeff Sapire edited this comment July 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 17 18 19 20
.

Bottom Home Top