You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand that. When partner could not bid NT over your 2 (assuming you bid 2 instead of just blasting 3N over 2), what is the chance you will make 3N knowing your LHO will lead a ? Partner cannot have both the Q and A given his 3 bid. So you are banking on him having 5 with the Q and the Q.

As for “tone deaf”, passing 3 is probably right. But if partner has 5 to the Q, and the Q, you have some hope for 5 (but no hope for 3N).
June 18, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You would prefer partner plays NT if he has Qx(x) in . And if he has nothing in , NT may not be the right contract with only one stopper.
June 18, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congrats. Kung Hey.
June 18, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is not just the T's, but also no quacks. Hand evaluator says re-valued to 23. As you pointed out, 1 opening allows opponents to come in cheaply (see part 2 of this problem).
June 18, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
a) Quantitative makes no sense, because opener's hand can be balanced to highly unbalanced, and point range can be 12 - ~19. Quantitative should only apply to balanced hands with max of 4 point range or with split range. So 4N is either straight BW or KC. In principle, one can first agree if KC is wanted, but unless your system allows a forcing bid now, it gets too clumsy and strange things can happen (e.g. partner supporting your ), so simplest is to play 4N when not quantitative to always be KC after opener's second bid.

b) If your system does not use minorwood of some kind, then it is KC. If it does, then since that is ruled out, it can only be quantitative (opener's hand is now limited to 14), but that is still strange when opener can have 5 - 7.
June 9, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems to me that 3 achieves the dual purpose of getting to 3N which may make and preempting as good as 4. And partner knowing you have solid suit would know better what to do than any # of bid by you.
June 1, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand why one should be that discouraged if it goes 2NT-3?-3NT-4?-4NT. Even if partner has a small doubleton in (and he would for sure bid 4N with that hand independent of his outside cards), you still have close to 75% chance of taking 6 tricks in , and if you don't, you are probably not making 4N anyway. When partner has xx in , you may even make 6 while 4N goes down, e.g. your LHO has Kxx in .

The K is another trick, just like any other K, as long as you are not missing two KC's. For that reason, I don't see particular reason to begin with 3. That bid may help between picking 6 and 6N, but given quite a few will just bid game, I will just play 6 whether partner has support or not.
June 1, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How would the percentage if you rule out hands missing 2 A and then hands missing 2 keycards in ?
June 1, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I give up. Obviously anyone can bid however he/she wants with his/her regular or often partners. But many of us have pick up partners often, and if everyone thinks the way he/she plays is the way everybody else plays, but they are not the same, then it is either disaster or use hesitation etc to figure things out. That is how it works at my club most of the time.
May 29, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Strange, I have always assumed everyone plays the same way. Now I find out no two people play the same way. The way I know is, X is invitational with both M or GF with various hands, and the X forces to 3M after the fit is found.
May 29, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think what I quoted is what is a la Mike Lawrence. And the responsive X is forcing to 3M. It is amazing to see from the responses here the lack of consensus of the meaning of X, 3, and 3M. It certainly does not speak well for sit down partnership.
May 29, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know what is expert standard. I believe common standard is the responsive double promises both M if only invitational strength. X-2H-2S and X-2S-3C are both forcing because advancer denies both M and so must have GF hand (occasionally 4 of m).
May 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To me, if there is a bid at the two level (the responsive X) you can make to find fit and other info, it makes no sense to start at the 3 level nebulously. So I would think the 3 bid should be very specific, e.g. asking for stopper denying 4M.

In standard bidding, the responsive X does not guarantee both M if GF hand.
May 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't disagree that it should not be put to a vote. As I said, even Precision would probably get voted down then. I just pointed out that your idea that somehow this is ACBL dictating to membership something they don't want it misguided.
May 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In other words, the club leadership/directors don't want to have Multi, so they use GCC as the excuse. Seems pretty grass root as opposed to Big Brother to me.
May 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Big Brother means ACBL powers that be are dictating to membership what they don't want. If Multi for GCC is put to a vote by the membership, I suspect it will be voted down by a huge margin, so you can hardly call it Big Brother. On the other hand, may be Precision e.g. will be voted down too! It is important for ACBL powers that be lead, which actually means Big Brother in some sense. So, you want them to be more Big Brother like, not less.

On the other hand, if your bridge enjoyment depends on being able to play Multi, I personally thinks that is pretty silly.
May 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know what the difference is between controlled psyche and risk-free psyche. Meckstroth wrote about why risk free psyche should not be allowed (by rules or by self-regulation) in the Bulletin some time ago.
May 26, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dave, I agree with what you wrote.
May 26, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So why would you smolen in the first place if you don't have 4 of other M? Why not just transfer to the M? Whatever reason you have to bid this way, they are reasons that opponents are entitled to know.
May 26, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This can easily be a hand where both sides make games, or even one side makes slam. Got to bid 5 now. Plus, you shut out their 4 bid.
May 23, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top