Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Paul Friedman
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 56 57 58 59
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If opener rebids 3NT, responder can pass. If opener rebids 4, responder can pass.

If responder bids a suit over either 4 or 3NT, this shows a strong hand with club support. Game forcing with at least some interest in slam. Some partnerships choose to use 4 as RKC in clubs
25 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ya, and they topped their section but not the overalls. St Pete Club is tough. :)
Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Randy:

Close, but the repeat (aka Part II) wins the worst prize
Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'll bet lots of Mike's and Richard's money that there never was any such ACBL provided booklet. I played strong club systems in the ACBL since before Precision existed at clubs, Sectionals, Regionals and Nationals. I never saw nor heard about such a publication.

Arline: does anyone in your club play a strong, forcing 2 opening? If so, what's the problem?
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I am running, 3NT seems best. Once this gets doubled (or partner bids 4), I bid 4 which must show tolerance for Hearts .. otherwise, I'd bid 4 directly.
Feb. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Terry:

I thought you showed up at St. Pete whenever I was playing just so you'd know that you'd get at least one 80% round.
Feb. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Randy"

Why do people with 6 and 7 digit incomes cheat at $10/hole golf? Why did my Great Uncle Mike cheat at 10 cent/point Gin Rummy?

It happens at all levels of all human endeavors.
Feb. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A bit of progress, perhaps. However, anyone out west interested in seeing the hand records simply needs one person from the eastern states to email one pdf file to them.

Casual cheaters will be impeded; serious cheaters will not be.
Feb. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Scott:

Are you a recovering K-Ser? I agree with your choice, but since I don't have a K-S partner - or one who knows and loves K-S - I still bid 2 but it is non-forcing.
Feb. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Looking forward to finding out the Bundy Standard answer.

I bid 2. If NT is the correct spot it is likely to be better from partner's side.
Feb. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg:

You are a marvel. Braving to weather and, worse, the constant fear of a viking raid by all those Norwegians at St. Olaf.

I bid 2. The reason? As in the Master Solvers, one should always postpone decisions to the next (unpolled) round.

2NT would be my second choice (resisting a psychic <psychotic> reverse to 2) as I strongly dislike jump shifting with a semi-balanced hand.
Feb. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assuming all balanced 21-22 hcp hands are opened 2NT and no other hands are opened 2NT, opener with have 7 or 8 controls (Ace=2; King=1) ~70% of the time (7 ~37%; 8 ~33%). Opener will never have more than 9 controls and will have fewer than 7 controls a bit under 25% of the time. Assuming opener has middling support (Qxx or so), do you want to be in slam facing 21 hcp with 7 or 8 controls?

Note bene: Percentages are from memory are are likely off a tad, but I think are close to reality.

As an aside, using a sequence to allow an escape at 4m after a 2NT opening seems strong to me. With the space killing 2NT greatly limiting the number of available sequences, I think there would be a better use for such sequences. Finally, with a balanced hand and a 5-card minor with slam interest; nothing prevents you for using a basic slam invitational sequence (presumably 2N-4N). 2N-4N;5-6, for example, can show opener accepts the slam invitation and has 4 diamonds and 2 or 3 clubs, while responder's 6 can show a good 5-card suit allowing opener to place the final contract.
Jan. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If my majors were reversed and we played 2 as showing both majors, I would forgive partner for bidding 2. I wouldn't like it, but …

When the opponents are red, we might well get a good score by simply passing.
Jan. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the bidding should have been:
1 - 1NT
2 - 2
3 - 4

After opener's reraise to three after bidding Diamonds, responder's meager assets look golden.
Jan. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2/1: any non-preemptive raise to 3 or higher
3/2: any non-preemptive raise worth more than a 4 bid

If both the above are true, then 3 shows a subset of the hands shown by 2.

The most obvious argument against allowing 3 is that it is not a true subset since responder's 3 over 1 is likely a splinter (of some agreed strength range) while 3/2 likely includes this hand type. Also the partnership might limit the 2 cue bid to showing exactly three card support while the 3/2 likely does not. But, neither of these (or similar) instances are part of your argument. You argument, in fact, seems to prove that 3 is, indeed, a subset.
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Christopher is certainly correct re: Goren. To the best of my knowledge, back in the olden days, only Roth-Stone treated a new suit over opener's 1NT rebid as forcing.

In Goren (aka old-fashioned Standard American) the only invitational bid after 1A - 1B; 1NT was 2NT.
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The denominations are Spades, Hearts, Diamonds, Clubs and No Trump.

Anti-denominations include cups,coins, batons and swords and pickles.
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 seems clear.

My second choice would be a Namyats 4 if the partnership played that and this hand qualified under partnership rules.
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice post, Peg.. especially when written when it is -10F (-23C).

The oddest part of the incident is the “do not speculate” comment.

I certainly see nothing wrong with filing a player memo. These are not accusations. I would not do so since I might well have tried Puppet.
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If, for some reason I had overcalled 3 in second seat, I would double. AQx of trumps, side void…it seems automatic.

That said, I have always been dubious of “peer reviews” for intermediate and novice players. If you asked me to peer review a chess move or a poker decision, my response is going to be random and likely to vary from day-to-day.
Jan. 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 56 57 58 59
.

Bottom Home Top