Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nick Warren
1 2 3 4 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 27 28 29 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't need convincing about theory - I need to see a fully worked up system. As was said in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, “Get on with it”.
Feb. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>No idea why North didn't bid 3S straight away, wjs as per previous hand. I presume my bid made them wary?

Because 3 might have been forcing for them?
Feb. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This comment has been marked as inappropriate by the moderator(s).
Feb. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How does this hand relate to the thread?

Anyway, to answer your question, no. I have 9 points, 3 of which rate to be wasted in , and 3 more of which are not in my suits and rate to be under the ace. And we're vul as well. I can see that bidding works in this instance, but that, to me, is resulting.
Feb. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This comment has been marked as inappropriate by the moderator(s).
Feb. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you want to enter the bidding as often as possible, then give up X as penalty. This is certainly playable against strong NT and weak NT at MPs. Lionel and Vertigo are worth thinking about.
Feb. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>“You share the opinion of the majority Nick”

Well not really. It could be said that I am the most conservative person I know with respect to opening balanced hands. But I do love shape more than most.
Feb. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One must, particularly at imp scoring, open all bar the most badly flawed, balanced 13 counts, good balanced 12s (and some exceptionally good 11s), because two such hands usually give you at least a 50/50 play for 3NT.

From 10hcp up to that “must” open barrier is less well defined. Some argue that by opening such hands you are more likely to score well than not. I've yet to see a truly convincing proof of that point, but I'm prepared to take it on trust. Set against that one loses some definition in the rest of the system as somewhere you have to make allowance for the fact that opener could be less strong than traditional systems allow.

Personally I am more interested in systems that allow some sort of constructive opening with, say:

Axxxx
Axxxx
-
xxx

than I am with say:

ATx
K9x
Qxxx
Jxx
Feb. 2, 2016
Nick Warren edited this comment Feb. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, but I'll peruse the actual system itself when you publish it.
Feb. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Ask yourself this question, “Why must I wait until I hold 12 points…"

I didn't say that. In fact I implied something quite different and questioned why you thought 10hcp was somehow more significant.

> Read all before you judge

Wise words of yours there.
Feb. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You might also have said that they have spent a long time sitting on their hands while (alleged in private) cheaters profited at the expense of other honest players.

That it took years before someone finally “broke ranks” and put together a convincing case against a couple of pairs, does not absolve the “authorities” in this case IMO. I don't play in internationals, nor much in tournaments that amount to a hill of beans. Even I had heard rumours. How can the “authorities” not have heard more, more often and earlier than I did? Yet nothing happened until a pile of stinking muck was thrust under their noses.

Talk of statutes of limitations and other such blah blah is all very well (and I'm not against such things). But they have to come from “authorities” with credibility. That is sorely lacking still on the world scene.
Feb. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Your bidding system must have a means of announcing a hand of 10+ points.”

I stopped reading at this point. Those hands that you talk of that make game with 20 combined points or less are a product of shape more than they are of some arbitrary number of “points” (whatever they are!) It would be truer to say that you have to have a way of opening shapely hands that are 10hcp or less.
Feb. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree if a fit can be found.
Feb. 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this 17 count with its 5 card suit, 7 controls and good spots is too strong (by a comfortable margin) for a 15-17 1NT. This hand is worth 18 and it isn't close IMO.
Feb. 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree the 2/3 decision is very close. Some days agression will work out, sometimes not. It being MPs I think I err on the side of caution.
Jan. 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2, but I like multi and polish twos ;)
Jan. 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Have some sympathy with the comments about bidding 1 rather than 1. However, you are where you are, and your methods call for showing a fifth heart, 4 spades or a club stop. You have the latter. WTP.
Jan. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The 54321 count will have some successes in low level NT contracts compared to 4321, largely because it credits 10s with something, which the traditional system does not. But in general it is rubbish, See, for example, http://bridge.thomasoandrews.com/valuations/cowan.html
Jan. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What are you saying Rainer? Are you suggesting that it is illegal to use other than hcp for evaluation? Surely not. Quite apart from the fact that such is not supported by the laws, would you outlaw the use of playing tricks, losing trick count etc? (And even though those things are actually not precisely defined despite their quite common usage!)

I agree that if your evaluation methods are a little off the beaten track one should make an effort to explain it in terms that most understand (even though it falls on deaf ears 95% of the time in a club environment!)
Jan. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some people can't be helped. For example, I've played “reasonable 12 to a bad 15” and announced it as such. Most people go “Oh, 12-15 then”. And I am tempted to say, “No, that isn't what I said”, but button my lip as it only ends up in pointless discussion and they seem to be none the wiser for it.
Jan. 28, 2016
1 2 3 4 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 27 28 29 30
.

Bottom Home Top