Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Leonard Helfgott
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 94 95 96 97
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I’m OK with the 4C bid, based partly on style. but otherwise what Jay said.
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree. I would always bid 3D with this type of hand, keeping the issue of strain ( possibly clubs, even diamonds) in play. For those who think 3D MUST be a control bid for clubs, it still is flexible enough to keep strains and levels open.
16 hours ago
Leonard Helfgott edited this comment 14 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of my late mentors was friends with a reasonably decent player whose first name is Benito. Week, he told me that Benito thought 2NT should almost always be artificial unless you are forced into it by system default. With this view by Bocchi, Levin, and whoever this Benito fellow is(!!!), it sounds reasonable to me.
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Stopperless NT should be avoided if there is any possible reasonable alternative, IMO. So I’m in 100% agreement with Kieran.
19 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very well said Gary. Thank you. I know that I and most of the masses of players around the world feel similarly.
19 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think there are plenty of ordinary hands with say 9-10 hcp or so where you have too much to not compete and have pattern that risks playing in 7 card fit at 3 level. For example 2344/2245/2254 and 1345/1354. Ifpartner rebids 2S with 5333/5323/5332 you are ok opp 1st set but not second. Should partner bid 3M with only 3? While one can make a compelling argument for bidding 2H with 5323 after 1S-2m-X because the average heart length will exceed the average spade length, moving to 3m in this scenario is riskier. In short, giving up the natural 2NT appears to have merit.
20 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It would probably a bizarre version of the application but 2NT as a GB2NT implying diamond length for lack of bidding 3C could work. Otherwise just pass as Dave Beer suggested. I don’t dislike support doubles but I admit this layout is bad for them.
Dec. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, yes and yes. Bridge is great! And sometimes Steve gets to meet a fellow BW correspondent and win the local club game! Thanks Steve!
Dec. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Love Kokish. Always advocate it if partner can adapt. I’m OK with the 3Rd try (trump quality) but don’t recall ever needing to use it. If you have a weak 6-bagger you will often have a stiff and SST takes preference if available. Shoring short suits for evaluation (SST, splinters, etal) is the most significant advance in bidding in part 50 years, IMO. One partner likes 1-2-3 preemptive .
Dec. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Paul that xxx(x) is not a good choice for HST/LST and that is seems very impractical to require 4+ cards for LST. Most of the time you will need help in a 3-card fragment.
Dec. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another agreement from “the other side of the pond” Richard. I think Frances has is completely nailed.
Dec. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Diamond to ace then ruff and heart misguess?
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I consider “help suit try” and “long suit try” to be the same although I am aware many disagree. You don’t need help with AKQ(x) but do need help with K10x, so the latter is the try, regardless of nomenclature.
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about ruff and heart to the 9 (if you can slip it through). May be better for mAtchpoints
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I’m with you 100%
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And what is the Aces Scientific game bid?
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have partners who annoyingly say nothing but rather move their head or wave their hand towards dummy, as if any verbiage requires too much effort.
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry Steve. While I understand the view I cannot bring myself to respond 1NT with 4 trumps, save for a blocking bid with xxxx Kxx Qxx xxx. Perhaps some might view 109xx as a “three card limit raise” but very few I would guess. I think Bridge World advocates 3NT (forcing) as a 4S preempt plus a side card, and that would seem closest to me if we were playing that.
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This may be a common phenomenon to those who have explored scores like these in depth but I found it very interesting that there was little difference in score between +50 an -50 but a much larger difference between +100 and +110. Vagaries of mAtchpoints I guess.
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great job Oren. Absolutely my favorite type of article. I recall BW from the 1970s and always hope for more of these.
Dec. 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 94 95 96 97
.

Bottom Home Top