Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Ma
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If N assumes S has a trick, how many tricks can he see on defense?
Dec. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Len, opponents will find a profitable sack in 6M if you have to begin with 2 or forcing 1.
Nov. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Funny, N's 1 was transfer, as was E's 1, and now S's X is transfer.
Nov. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think it is true for 6 level m.
Nov. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, 1 bid is 5+. X is 4 or if 5+, something different from 1.
Nov. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At the one level, there is something to be said for the 4th suit to only be 4. Also, when the overcall is m, it should not deny more than tolerance, so as to find possible M fit.
Nov. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As an extension to the OP, suppose you play Snapdragon. If 1 is short club, should the X become responsive ( - )?
Nov. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robert, I asked what to do if 2 does NOT promise 4M. You answered what to do if 2 DOES promise 4M.

I have no idea what your last sentence mean. Over 2, responder will bid 2 (or 2NT) to show invitational hand with 4 .
Nov. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Craig, why do you keep saying this scheme is analogous to unusual over unusual? It would be analogous if 3oM by responder is s fit showing non jump over 2NT.
Nov. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Craig, if you think Robson is god, that is fine. But you were the one who wrote that after a 2M Michaels, that is analogous to unusual over unusual. That is patently false, which was what Frances portend out.
Nov. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you play 2 as not promising 4M, then if you respond 2 with 4-4, what is responder to do with 4 and invitational hand?
Nov. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, as I commented elsewhere, “stopper, who needs stopper”. So if one insists on keeping the 4 - 5+ structure, bidding 1NT is probably the way to go with 8 - 11 and no stopper. But if one is willing to give up that structure, then it is not necessary.
Nov. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Craig, are you sure you are not confusing responder bidding 3 with advancer bidding 3?
Nov. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The whole point is that if you are playing short or , you better play X or 1 denying 4, because responder often will not have an easy bid.
Nov. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ever heard of “stoppers, who need stoppers?”
Nov. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wayne, if you think about it, you will realize that there is no hole.
Nov. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Craig, Christopher, it is not rare, and yes, it is not considered standard at this time, but if you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. For me, when I play Precision, it makes no sense not to do it.
Nov. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nigel, how would responder pass 1 with that hand?
Nov. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wayne, that is silly. One 800 AND match win does not mean no other winds. Furthermore, it is not about frequency, it is about if there is a simpler way to bid the hand.
Nov. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a possibility that responder was too weak to show the first time, but not so weak to sell out to 2. It depends on partnership as to whether such a hand is possible.
Nov. 28
.

Bottom Home Top