Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jon Cooke
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yehudit - what are you on about?
If Oppo play 15-17, they won't be inviting when partner has 14, they'll rebid 1NT.
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many people? Name 6 as Jim Hacker would say to Sir Humphrey.
Aug. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Probably reasonable spot to psyche a game try, bid a genuine 2H or punt 4S. 3C might well get them to lead a trump a lot, which might collect the queen, and they may get confused if I run trumps.
Aug. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Q
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would expect a good teacher to point out that if the bidding gets to a high level and your partner can't help you with more tricks, he's expected to double the opponents, and therefore some defense commensurate with the level at which that might occur is logical. I wouldn't expect a good teacher to mandate 5 controls.
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not clear on your point 1, RF.
Are you saying that a change in tournament regulations which bans something so mainstream that it's even taught to beginners is OK?

Regarding point 2: Clearly most distributional FG hands that can control the auction will have 5 controls - that's not the same thing as mandating that a hand has to have. To test the hypothesis: “Beginners are taught to open 2C with game in hand without a specific requirement for 5 controls” you'd need to provide teachers with hands like the one Lamford began the article with. Providing a small sample of examples of hands that happen to meet the 5 control criterion isn't relevant.

I really don't think the committee meant to ban opening 2C on hands which are clearly worth “game in hand”. Do you think they did?
Aug. 21
Jon Cooke edited this comment Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are completely wrong that they aren't qualified. They are mostly a smart group of strong bridge players. I've tried drafting things and committees are good at pointing out problems. Wordings can go round and round, until everyone gets fed up and agree on something that isn't potentially what any of them would have come up with on their own. They are volunteers, and I respect their donation of their time. I just think they've made a mistake and should change it.
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I didn't think it was controversial suggesting beginners are taught to open 2C when they have “game in hand” without reference to having 5 controls. But OK: since you asked: it's in the standard English system file/it's on the Mr Bridge beginners card/it's what I was taught by my parents when I learned bridge/it's what I've taught beginners myself. It's quite often said that you should open at the two level if you fear being passed at the one level and missing a cold game. A mention of having enough high card strength to control the auction is common too, but specific requirement of a particular number of controls I've not heard about before.
Aug. 21
Jon Cooke edited this comment Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's a slightly loose definition, sure. But it's all I bother saying to a new partner - I've added no other requirement. After opening 2 our partnership is forced to double the opponents or bid on. That's the only “legislative” requirement I'd apply and it protects the opponents to a large extent from me opening 2 on preempts. That's my definition of a game-forcing bid by the way.
Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think I'd miss game on your first example if partner passed a one level opening.
No one teaches beginners to open 2C on that. More straw man arguments.
Aug. 20
Jon Cooke edited this comment Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are a strange man wanting to move your rook diagonally.
I'm not a strange man for wanting an agreement taught to all beginners to be legal.
That you think these two things are similar reflects more on you than me.
Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
JP: I want to play 2C as “FG or 23-24 BAL”.
I don't want to specify which suits I might or might not have.
Currently that is an illegal agreement, and that is silly since virtually every bridge teacher teaches it to beginners. Please stop mixing up this issue with potentially poor disclosure.
Aug. 20
Jon Cooke edited this comment Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well I shall write to them and ask that they revisit it. Banning a method played by more than half the public and taught routinely to beginners can't have been what they meant to do - but they have.
Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You don't have the right to impose your preference on everyone else. You shouldn't mandate that any hands which are cold for game in hand and close to slam opposite a couple of right cards be opened at the one level and risk being passed out: it's something we teach complete beginners not to do. I bet every individual on the committee could be persuaded of this, but collectively they've come up with something ridiculous. (And I hold many of them in high regard, by the way)
Aug. 20
Jon Cooke edited this comment Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
JP, correct me if I'm wrong:
You are saying that I shouldn't be allowed to open 2C with the agreement “23-24 or FG” on AKQxxxx KQJxxx because my opponents pay table money, and this would be an act of browbeating them?
Aug. 20
Jon Cooke edited this comment Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are you saying the regulation doesn't apply to FG or 23-24 2C openers, RF?
Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Opening 2
This is the strongest bid in the Acol system, showing 23+ HCP or a game
forcing hand. See Section 2.8 for actions after 2 with unbalanced hands.”

That's straight out of the EBU beginners system file. It's now an illegal agreement unless the FG hand has 5 controls or 16hcp . RF implies this is a deliberate decision rather than an oversight. I don't understand.
Aug. 19
Jon Cooke edited this comment Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Disclosure is a separate issue. My problem is the EBU have banned 2C as “FG or 23-24 BAL.”
It's not right to mandate that some hands which are cold for slam in hand can't be opened 2C by agreement.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ok. So the L and E have mandated a 12 trick hand be opened at the 1 level unless playing Acol 2s. I think that is silly.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Right, that singleton Jack is critical.
Aug. 19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
.

Bottom Home Top