Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Bell
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Specifically, the loss of the natural sequence 1:1, 1.

The point of transfers over 1 is to give you an extra step when responder shows a four-card major. Inverting the majors in response to 1 will make very little difference overall except in terms of which hand plays the contract.
Dec. 11, 2019
Mike Bell edited this comment Dec. 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Once it is ruled that it was correct 2 not be alerted, it's the only logical conclusion.

There are plenty of situations where, if partner bids without asking, you know what assumptions they have made; the onus is on you to find out what oppo's bids actually meant. You may not think to do so, but in that case you may be ruled against.

Two-suited bids are a common problem here. If the auction starts 1 (2), and responder bids 2 without asking, he may find that he's shown the wrong hand-type when the 2 bid actually showed spades and clubs.

Obviously, that's far more reasonable than the situation here - which extends from the initial problem with the regulations, namely that a 2 transfer isn't alertable. Of course, we would be in the same position in the EBU, as all meanings for 2 bids are alertable. I'm sure David will try to explain to me again why a bid for which all meanings are alertable is less problematic than a bid for which no meanings are alertable, but I didn't understand the last few times so I doubt I will this time either.
Dec. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They played in 2X opposite a Michael's Cuebid. They knew it wasn't intended as such because partner didn't find out the meaning of 2.

The fact that they didn't realise 2 was a cuebid until after the auction finished is irrelevant.
Dec. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sounds like the partner of the 2 bidder abused UI by passing!
Dec. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gold/Townsend, playing four-card majors, once bid 1-P-1 when both players held three cards in their bid suit. The director was called, and, when asked to explain, Tom replied, “we both had bad hands and we were both at favourable”.
Dec. 9, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed, very surprising that South didn't raise 2 to game.
Dec. 9, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is pretty logical IMO. 1m:2m+1 will do a good enough job on the strong raises, while 1m:2m is more useful as something else.

In the context of playing 1 as natural/balanced, I play 1:2 as natural NF and 1:2 as 5H4S NF (there are systemic reasons why 5H4S is the problem handtype for us, not 5S4H).
Dec. 9, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I play as Stefan suggests.
Dec. 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Depends which major.
Dec. 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suspect that Chris's guess, in the first response, isn't actually a guess.
Dec. 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No - there were two previous threads where people made the same point.

It would certainly make scheduling English events substantially easier if arrangements were known two years in advance, but I'm not holding my breath on this changing any time soon.
Dec. 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting. The junior's is back there in 2020; it was a great location for that in 2016, but it hadn't occurred to me that it was an option for a larger event.
Dec. 5, 2019
Mike Bell edited this comment Dec. 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
"Declarer claimed 12 tricks. He said he intended
to run all of his diamonds
; the defenders would
eventually get their “high trump.”"

Does this statement not stand?
Dec. 4, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Finding worthy candidates proved so difficult that these awards were discontinued a couple of years ago.
Dec. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/2022-wbf-tournament-location/

See Eitan's comments here. An announcement was expected a few days ago.
Nov. 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Chris! I'd alert all of responder's actions I listed above - I'm not an expert on the US regulations though.
Nov. 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was South. Not wishing to take anything away from my partner, but 4 is pretty clear when partner has promised five cards IMO
Nov. 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think they are. If West has ace-sixth in hearts then the quick ruff isn't needed.
Nov. 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMO quick 4 = shape, slower = high cards
Nov. 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robson-Forrester play 1M as five here. I like it too - I see support doubles as a necessary evil in standard methods and like to avoid the need for them where possible.

After 1 (1) X (2), I would play:

Pass = weak NT
2M = unbalanced minimum
X = good hand

After 1 (1) X (2); P (P), if responder chooses to bid again:

X = takeout, with both majors opener bids 2
2 = NF with 4 hearts and not 4 spades
2 = NF with 4 spades and 5 clubs
Nov. 12, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top