Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kyle Rockoff
1 2 3 4 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Reasonable at matchpoints given north has a lot of jacks, and south's opening is lighter (vs 2/1) on average. At IMPs North should invite, and south should consider accepting having good 10's and 9's (certainly 100% of the time Vul).
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2NT-3-4-4-5-5-6-7
April 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In standard 2/1 I'm going to pass and then bid like a crazy person later. 5 probably isn't going anywhere and it's to hard to say who the heck I'm preempting by opening that high in 1st seat. I don't like 1 because it leads to too many “how high” rebid problems, especially in a competitive auction.

2/1 makes dealing with this kind of hand hard in my opinion. Other systems like precision usually have a better “lie” for these sorts of hands if you want to treat it like an opener (i.e. 2 or an unbalanced 1).
April 24
Kyle Rockoff edited this comment April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There might be punishment here for 2, but not enough information available to truly know if it's worth it. One of the benefits of playing 5 card preempts.
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Natural. Just learn Drury.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm guess 2 was not alerted (with no agreement about bids after an 1NT overcall), and hence 2 wasn't a cuebid. There seems to be a discrepancy on what systems EW play over a 2 overcall. If EW had the agreement that 2 was natural in that sequence, NS were entitled to that info before the lead.

Edit: If 2 was by agreement natural, then I tend to side with the ruling. South was entitled to that agreement on lead, even if he messed up their agreement. I think it's kind of cheap for South to complain though after fixing EW for a top with the “we had no agreement” argument for his 2 bid. This might merit a different score adjustment, if NS does not properly have a convention card filled out.
April 17
Kyle Rockoff edited this comment April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's still frankly insane if you are supposed to consider the opponent's potential revokes when making a claim. Forget what is the “fair” result without a revoke– on the lay of the cards without the claim declarer has a very reasonable line to 13 tricks with the penalty trick, assuming he does not play a diamond (which by weak assumption, has no logical reason to).
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Okay this has made me curious so I got out the Law– I think law 69B is probably the one that applies, based on the fact that the claim is made before the revoke discovered. Declarer has essentially claimed the lost of a trick that is not possible (having all trump left in hand), and hence the defense is only awarded one trick for the claim. Now, one trick is returned for the revoke. I think it is illogical to require declarer to lead a diamond so his opponent whom he informed had no trump can secretly overruff. Hence 13, tricks (unless I am wrong about the subtleties of the corrections for revokes during claim statements, or after the hand has ended). Maybe even then, this just requires TD discretion in score adjustment, but I think there's enough basis in the laws to warrant a correction to 13 tricks.
April 17
Kyle Rockoff edited this comment April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Without the revoke, it seemed you would have taken 12 tricks (conceding a high trump). You get one back for the revoke– I am not informed on the exact law numbers that apply, I'm sure someone here knows. It's interesting that a claim was involved– I think when the claimer is misinformed by the opponents, especially when in so clear an end position, the burden of stating a line on the claimer is given some leeway (especially if declarer's claim was logical in terms of the context in which he actually claimed, unaware of the revoke). I'm interested if there is any precedent for this from any national level calls.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm thinking 2NT is a balanced invite (maybe with a diamond feature decent enough to have not enough interest defending at this vulnerability, and stoppers in the majors), XX should be value showing, partner can now double for penalty in wherever they scramble to, rebids should just be 11-17 HCPs, with offensive diamond strength. Really just an agreement question, so this is all just my take.
April 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wasn't actually polling about preempting this hand, but opening 2. Maybe I'm just playing too many strong club systems right now, but with 4 losers I think it's a pretty accurate description. I opened the hand this way with one of my collegiate teammates we had a very smooth auction to 6 with the strong opening (playing 2 forced with cheaper minor for the bust hands: 2-2-2-3-4-4-4-4NT-5-5NT-6). You need the right agreements about 2 obviously (i.e. that it might not be about HCPs in 4th seat) but it worked very nicely.
April 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yep– posted this from my phone with bad wifi– it's fixed now.
April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about… by agreement? When I play 3-card raises in standard, I personally prefer to have the agreement to play spiral raises, where a 2NT by responder asks partner if they raised their suit on 3 or 4 card support. Without agreement, doing it with two honors is probably fine at matchpoints, but I think responding 1NT is clearer if partner will not expect the 3 card raise.
April 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's true– I think the spot cards in diamonds and clubs are personally worth the upgrade if you're playing a light opening style. I was more curious about the popularity of a 1NT rebid with a stiff-queen.
April 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The general context of this question came from playing a Precision based bidding system. I suppose it is a marginal in the standard context.
April 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
EW is playing Hello– 2 is the first thing you thought it meant (forced).
April 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Negative/Stayman
April 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To my knowledge, East is not entitled to use the knowledge that his partner did not alert the double (assuming it was alertable). East is obligated to respond to 3, for whatever it would mean. My guess is it must be forcing. I would guess adjust to 4 -1, but would need to see the full deal.
March 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Jeff,

I'm in Dave's USBF Jr group that you'll be playing with April 10th– thanks again for coming to join us, I'm really excited for it.

On to a question: Do you have a favorite convention from the past that's been scrapped from your current main precision system? One of my regular partner's and I are always experimenting with different approaches in our system– as we keep keep going on, we keep finding more and more things we decide to leave behind as we improve it.

Thanks!
March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fixed
March 27
1 2 3 4 5
.

Bottom Home Top