Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jim Perkins
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 152 153 154 155
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner is sort of hard-headed about no inflected bidding. Having shown both MAJs and a max, there's no going back and saying, “Oh he must mean s really.”
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't really understand, Martin. Are they fine or are they not good enough to proceed? I tried the thread the needle with 3 and then bailing at 4, but partner (and the BW community) was having none of that.

I still think (as RF points out upthread) that if she had 1.25 club stoppers, 3NT would have been a good bargain. But maybe that is too small a target.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was trying to blame her for not PASSing 4 . . . which despite the poll results, I continue to think is justified but pollees are not assigning the weight that I did to the non-forcing nature of 2.

And what did Lewis Carroll say about a private language? If you had one who would you talk to? Or something.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Despite the roles assigned here, I acknowledged that I must PASS over 3. Which seems very odd, given that I made a non-forcing bid, partner said YES! I like it, and, in some sense, I have a maximum (for my prior non-forcing bid).

As a mentor explained to me, “How can she possibly have cards to cover all your losers?” Even the ideal K, A, AK and K doesn't get us to 9 before they take 5.

I hate being wrong.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lynn we crossed as I was editing/updating.
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not saying that I am right here (I was partner), but my argument is that my hand is severely limited by the highly PASSable 2 call.
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not only alerted but pre-alerted. I explain the nuances of our system about 10x “natural” bidders.


Our 1 opener (could be as few as 2, If balanced, s could be longer and significantly longer) is not prohibited although the list of prohibitions runs to 13 entries.

Here is the full and complete list of prohibited Responses and Rebids

1. Psyching an Artificial response below 2NT to an opening bid or an overcall.

2. Psychic Controls.
Jan. 19
Jim Perkins edited this comment Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner has denied 4s and partner has denied 9 hcp (or their equivalent).
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Which on the actual layout is leading toward a good result. So far. Not that the actual layout is what's important.
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner bid 2. You bid 3.
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In a standard context 18-19 balanced (or 5 card suit upgraded to 18, etc.).

Then 1m - 1M - 2NT = 6 card minor, 3 card MAJ and 16+ points.

But again, none of the above.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the absence of discussion, any x after either side bids a natural NT is penalty. A different agreement is possible and may be preferable but not “natural” to use a term I hate
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or to quote my friend and sometimes mentor or coach, Danny Kleinman, 97.99% of players would be better off if they had access to neither Gerber nor Blackwood/RKC nor kickback.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
These things happen. More and more. As compensation, there's bridge.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Other. You should probably write to BW, not BBO.
Jan. 11
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some of us have agreements, that facilitate slam bidding immensely, that certain bids unconditionally set suits with no possibility of retreat. This may not be your style. But it is some people's.

In shorthand, these bids are called “suit setting.”
Jan. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, I like starting with a negative x to suggest two suits although some people tell me that I am bidding in the 1980s to think that a negative x suggests an unbid minor.

Now when I come in at some number of s (likely 4 for whatever reason), partner can hopefully work out that s are implied.
Jan. 10
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thus, I ask. Has the partnership agreed that 3s sets s as trump (if there is to be a trump suit).
Jan. 10
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 was, of course, suggested only upon the condition that the partnership understands that s is trump if there is to be a trump.

I have that agreement (now). But we also missed a slam in a precision 1 opening auction because I was reluctant to show a control in s lest partner think I was preferring s to s.
Jan. 10
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well I don't have the chops of others in this sub-thread, but I would not unilaterally bypass 3NT. But I don't like 3 either. If s is our trump suit (if there is to be one) then 3 is fine, followed by 4 over 3.

Maybe all of that entails a lot of bidding by both partners not intending to play in Opener's opening suit.

6 losers v. 6 loser slams are not easy to bid and sometimes not that great anyway.
Jan. 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 152 153 154 155
.

Bottom Home Top