Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nick Warren
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The scenario wouldn't happen at my table in the first place. Where I am, in a team match a) General system in use is typically established when you sit down (so the question wouldn't have even been asked like that as they'd already know) and b) “2/1 gf” responses are not inherently alterable (provided they are natural), so if I had alerted the 2 call it would have been because it could have been short, so that would obviously had to have been in any explanation.
Feb. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was looking at the frequency of various shapes versus the final contract for the pre-empting side. Length in a/the other major was a noise factor. The best shapes were definite one suiters with shortness in a higher ranking suit.
Feb. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To me a spade is an alternative, but I am not surprised that the majority go for a diamond - which could easily be right.
Feb. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 for me. I'm closer to a namyats 4 if available than 4. But, I recognise that 4 could well be a winner too.
Feb. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm sure this could be made to “work”. I am not at all sure it would be any better, however, than the systems we've already got.
Feb. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff, yes, people can get too high. There is a definite risk that 1NT was making and that 2M and/or 2NT is down. I personally have only played it with one partner so my direct experience of it is not great, but in general I see little grief coming from it in practice. I certainly don't see that solution as being any worse than the other possibilities discussed in this thread.
Feb. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is not uncommon in the UK (where weak NT is common) to treat the !NT rebid, after a 1-1 start, as wide ranging and use a 2 responder's rebid as artificial.
Feb. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“you should preempt more aggressively when your shortness is in a higher-ranking suit than when your shortness is in a lower-ranking suit.”

Definitely.

I once looked at a database of DD hands and examined all the boards where the par contract was a sacrifice. It showed, for example, that 1=7(23) shape was better than 2=7(13) which was better than 3=7(12).

It also showed that weak twos in both minors would (other things being equal - which they are not) be a good idea.
Feb. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While I don't completely disagree with you Yuan - and at the risk of (continuing) this topic getting completely beyond the scope of the intermediate forum…. in a specifically Acol context (i.e. 4 card majors with a weak NT ), the repeating of a 5 card major does have some point to it, especially one as strong as this.

In any event, there are those who, in some styles of 2/1 (and other systems) that employ a 2M waiting bid that really conveys nothing useful other than to deny anything interesting in the hand. (OK, OK, before people object, the context is different!)

Also, “solving” this particular hand by opening it with a weak NT, though it may possibly be a long term winner for this shape, is hardly attractive in this instance. And “solving” it by raising 1 on xxx with a balanced hand it not a thing of beauty either (not to mention it doesn't solve 2=5=3=3 shape anyway).

Other “solutions” are possible (play a strong NT anyone?!), but all have their plusses and minuses as far as I can see.

I am not a fan of Acol either - but at least at the MP game it has it's moments.
Feb. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I will not learn from this mistake.”

Bet you do. A confession can be cathartic.
Feb. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kathryn, “intermediate” is a very wide bucket description for pretty much anyone who isn't a complete beginner and who has some experience up to but not including “advanced” (i.e. a generally competent player who is not quite a genuine expert). Hence quite a wide range of material is appropriate in this forum.

Your posts are good.
Feb. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hmmmmm…

I have played with partners who think that bidding here means you've made a free bid and are not scraping up a response based on fit and not much else. If I were playing with such a partner, I'd pass (and pass again if, say, lefty raises to 2 and it comes back to me). The reason you have to pass with such partners is that they will bid on or double them (when it may well have been right had you had what they thought you've got) In other words you can get hung (and lose the post mortem in partner's eyes as well).

However, IMO, such a policy is losing bridge - well certainly at match points anyway - at imps it is maybe a little closer - but even there, it is probably right to riase in the long run.
Feb. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lead first, then write. Declarer (and partner) are supposed to study the dummy for circa 10 seconds or so before playing, so you will get a chance to study dummy too (and if they play quickly, refuse to quit the trick, so you do get the chance).
Jan. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I agree that your example hand is a much clearer case. But this isn't as clear, especially given the relatively timid 2NT rebid. (I just get a little uppity about some of the things in the rules that are problematic in practice for the majority of those of us who are called on to TD).
Jan. 29, 2015
Nick Warren edited this comment Jan. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the context of a typical club game, how does the director find enough people willing to answer any sort of poll? During the game the people are all busy and after the game most of them can't get out of the door fast enough. The ones that are left are often the better players who are discussing some hand, but unfortunately they probably aren't the same category of player as those at the table where the problem occurred. Hence no poll is possible.

I agree, in theory, with the sentiments of conducting a poll and restricting it to those who think the previous bidding reasonable. In practice such a policy is completely ludicrous for most directors in most situations.

So, in practice, the TD is going to have to make a decision and it is 50/50 guess as to whether he/she gets it right, i.e. this is a case of “you're damned if you do and damned if you don't”.
Jan. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In general and especially for intermediates and below, I wouldn't worry too much about what happened at other tables (whether it is IMPs or MPs). All you can do is try to do the best you can given the situation you are faced with at this table. And in your situation here, you have no clear bid and doing so has more downsides than upsides.
Jan. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To answer the unnumbered question first, I guess the most common agreement is to show attitude on partner's lead. But people vary and some vary according to whether it is NT or a suit contract and specific situations vary. Bottom line is to discuss it with partner and do that (much better to know where you both are than to do something that is theoretically correct but partner can't read the signal).

1. Yes things do change according to what you see in dummy. A common example is they're in a suit contract and dummy hits with a singleton in the leader's suit. Now it would be normal to not give either attitude or count, but suit preference.

2. It would be routine to give count if, say, declarer tries a possibly speculative ten or jack from dummy and you can't beat that card. Your attitude would seem to be self evident.
Jan. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, my meta rule is, if there are two critical suits, you show a stop by bidding it. If there is one, you bid the suit to ask for a stop. That's fairly logical too.

Indeed to bypass partner's sign off with a hand that is invitational (whatever the meaning of 3M), is showing a distributional raise that was close to a gf and is asking to play in game if partner should be at the max end of his/her signoff.
Jan. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had intended 3 as showing a stop as you suggest - but clearly it needs discussion.
Jan. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assuming I can stop in 4 after 3, I might try 3 and follow with 3 over 3. I think I would do that if it is IMPs and the game bonus is worth pushing for. If I can't stop in 4 or it is MP scoring, I would try 3 and pass 3.
Jan. 19, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top