Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Wenble
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Like many another convention, Raptor and variants thereof are good on the hands they are designed for, but the cost of what you are forced to give up to play them is too great. Here, if you have to start with a TOD on strong balanced hands, partner is constantly compromised. For instance, he is constrained from jumping to 4M (or 2M or 3M) on otherwise suitable hands in case he finds you with a doubleton.

It is better to adopt a Multi-Landy (Woolsey) approach to overcalling a 1m opening: 2 = majors (permitting 4=5 by partnership agreement); 2 = one major; 2M = M+m (om if 1m is natural, or either minor if 1m could be short); 2NT = both minors. The 2M bid is NF, so another bid has to be found if overcaller is strong.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The bid of the fourth suit … is not a convention. A convention is a bid which conveys a meaning understood only through pre-arrangement. The bid of the fourth suit is completely natural and may be capably handled by any intelligent player even if never previously encountered” (Norman Squire)
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, no. It comes from their book Tournament Acol, now presumably out of print for many years. If I get the time I'll post a summary here. (Won't be today)
March 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Transfers after Stayman were suggested by David Bird and Tim Bourke in the mid-90s.
March 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I find the idea that the sequence (1)- X - (1) - 1 denies four spades much more appealing.
March 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The major suits are not equal here. Just as it is more pressing for opener to re-raise after the auction 1M - 2M when M = hearts than when M = spades, so here I would be more inclined to pass (as doubler) with a minimum than if the auction had started (1) - X - (1) - 1 - (P)
March 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see no merit whatsoever in opening 1
March 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Submarine splinters, as promoted by Ron Klinger
March 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps I'm in a minority, but I would not answer in that way.
March 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If someone buys me a house in Monaco (or an apartment: I'm not fussy), I'll make myself available.
March 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike Ma:“if you have 986543, x, xx, Axxx. Playing 1♥ - 2♠ as weak, do you bid 2♠?”

Yes. (Adding parenthetically: if not playing 1 - 2 as weak then I'd rather pass than bid 1)

Over the weekend, I held J107653 Q76 1097 2 and 8 J109542 Q43 976. I felt I was worth a WJS on both occasions
Feb. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand Kit's comment. I should have thought that when three suits have been bid a natural non-forcing 2NT was quite useful. I'm quite happy to score -50 when the macho pairs are in 3NT-2.

And I don't see the problem after a FSF 3: opener can pattern out comfortably.

As for the OP, much as I like to avoid three-level invitations where possible, 1 - 1 - 2m - 2 would be weak so there's little option but to play 1 - 1 - 2m - 3 as invitational. If I can play 1 - 2 as weak, then 1 - 1 - 2m - 2 is constructive and 1 - 1 - 2m - 3 is forcing
Feb. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree too. Nobody plays 1 - (2) - X as penalties any more (do they?) so why play this as penalty-seeking? Being able to double one of their suits is ineffective - they will always bid the other one.

(On a different soapbox, I see little value in 1any - (X) - XX as penalty-seeking, for much the same reasons)
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4m = m + OM
Feb. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not heard of the acronym VTP before, but it is very effective against a weak no-trump too
Feb. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As pointed out above, 1M-2NT as LR+ rather than GF is commoner in Europe than in the US. I think this stems from Acol 1M-3M NF vs Culbertson 1M-3M GF.

Can any Bergenites demonstrate that having three different ways to show a LR actually helps?
Jan. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This one is easy for me. I wouldn't bypass 3NT with only two spades, so 4 shows 3 spades and 4(+) diamonds. 4 is choice of games.

Mind you, it's somewhat easier if you play second-round transfers (2NT = clubs, 3 = diamonds)
Jan. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The advantages of a 4th seat weak 1NT are (a) no-one has a penalty double; (b) game is sufficiently unlikely that there is no need to play complex methods to investigate, so transfers are off, 2D is a natural weak take-out (if not playing a weak 2D opening), 3-level bids are preemptive., etc.
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True. Based on a simulation I ran a couple of months ago, the figures are 1st seat:20%; 2nd seat 25%; 3rd seat 33%; 4th seat: 47%. The relative proportions (see Rosalind's comment below) also shift towards the higher end.
Jan. 20
Mike Wenble edited this comment Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Baron is by a long way the weakest of the conventional 3 responses to 2NT. It wrong-sides many contracts, and misses 5-3 fits.
Jan. 16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
.

Bottom Home Top