Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Paul Maris
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, completely different. My partner's hands were respectively

19: 6 5 9 6 2 K Q 9 4 3 2 A K
23: 9 6 10 9 6 4 A K Q J 7 3 2
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The essence of the post were the hands, not the results.
I'm absolutely sure this has nothing to do with a bug in the hand generator. It was just a coincidence, once in a lifetime.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Kerry - if you refer to my post: third hand play is not splitting as Monty already pointed out above. My post was concerning third hand play: it is standard to play the lowest of touching honors, my example was an exception.
June 27
Paul Maris edited this comment June 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
9, highest from (four) small when the highest two are adjacent (touching); particularly from 98(-) where the 9 shows 0 or 2 higher.
June 27
Paul Maris edited this comment June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is playing the jack from Q-J-10 (against notrump, when partner leads low, 4th/5th not relevant, and dummy has 2 or 3 small).
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“(…) and bottom of a sequence if playing third hand high.”
With one classic exception.
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'll convince partner to play Kickback.
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Mike - no idea at the moment I bid 1NT, after that anything could happen. But after Pass-Pass probably 7.
Partner has J10x x xxxx QJ10xx.
And RHO Qxx AK10xxx xx AK.
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1) Q, K, no K
2) Q, K
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AKx QJ9x AKx xxx
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael,
From your reaction above, I understand that if you don't bid 2 but 2NT, you're showing a weak hand with 6(+) spades. Two questions:
(1) 3, 3 and 3 likewise (with the suit bid)?
(2) “Weak”. Can you please specify that a little more?
Thanks in advance!
May 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thomas,
Interesting combination of Control Asking Bid and Keycard ask. Does it at the same time set the trump suit? And how about 3-3?
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve,
“FWIW, I like 3 followed by partner's response from:”
. . .
I guess you mean after 3 - 3; …?
Please check your responses, maybe there is something wrong.
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Patrick,
I don't understand your comment. “And advancer could have 3343”. It is advancer who doubles.
March 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not playing leaping Michaels doesn't change my answer. Only the distribution now can be different including 5+/5+.
To answer your question about leaping Michaels:
Method 1) just pass, let them show their suit and act as you would have done over this weak two.
Method 2) bid directly: 4 = + major (4 asks), 4 = + major (4 = pass or correct).
Method 3) directly 4m = m + hearts, first Pass, then 4m = m + spades.
Feb. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Jeroen,
I think I see your problem. On one hand, the spades do not seem strong (and/or long) enough for a direct 3 (or DBL + jump in spades), so auto-cue is impossible. On the other hand, partner did not apply leaping Michaels (“Wereldconventie”), either direct or delayed. So 5+/5+ also does not seem to be at issue.
That's why I voted for natural, expecting 6(+) spades and 4 diamonds in a strong hand unsuitable for notrump.
Feb. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Stefán, “why not just pass with penalty?” and “ why not just trust partner to protect?”.
Because I think partner will not ‘protect’. In this case partner did protect already (he was a passed hand) and if you don't act now, he has no reason to tell the same story twice. In my opinion this also holds true when he is an unpassed hand. To bid a second time, he needs extra values, which he is very unlikely to hold when I have a penalty double and both opponents are bidding. In summary: when I have a penalty double, I will not play a system where I have to risk that 2 will be passed out.
Furthermore, why do I need a ‘responsive’ (non-penalty) double? If I have spades or a long minor, I have an easy bid, and if I have both minors, I bid 2NT.
Nov. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, you're welcome. At that time I also was a young player, interested in bidding theory. It was a pleasure to browse through those old magazines again, all those memories. In those years people began to see that bidding after 2NT could be improved. For sure ideas came up independently and many have contibuted in this area. As early as April 1977, Kit Woolsey's “Puppet Stayman” was published in The Bridge World; he noticed that it was developed bij Neil Silverman and expanded in cooperation with his partner Steve Robinson. One year later, April 1978, Woolsey again wrote an article in TBW, “Puppet Stayman Revisited”, in which he extended the idea to the 2NT-opening. He came up with a solution for the difficult 5+4 responding hand, I'll leave the details.
In the field of recognition, Rosenkranz indeed was very clever in promoting his Romex. However, I can assure you that in my mind “FCTS” and “David Caprera” are inextricably linked!
July 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some history about bridge magazine articles

In The Bridge World, June 1981, in the department What's New in Bridge there was an article “F C T S” (Five Card Transfer Stayman) by David Caprera and Gerry Oehm.

In the ACBL Bulletin, in the department Master Pointers, George Rosenkranz had a section on Modern Bidding, in which in July 1981 an article “2NT Opening: Road to Ruin or Riches?” appeared. In this article, among other things, the 3 Romex-Stayman was explained. This was the first time I found this designation. Later on, in his books (for example Bridge: The Bidder's Game, 1985), he elaborated on the Romex-Stayman.

So both magazine articles date from 37 years ago, and the articles were published in consecutive months, not with an intervening period of one year, as Mr. Caprera claims.

Also there was a slight difference between the two treatments, although opener's rebids after 3 were identical. It concerns the follow-ups after 2NT-3; 3 (showing less than 5 and less than 4).
FCTS bids over 3:
- 3 = asks -length (3=3, 3NT=2, 4=4)
- 3 = 3+5 (now a possible 3/5-fit is discovered)
Romex bids over 3:
- 3 = 4 (3=also 4card , 3NT=no 4card )
- 3 = 5(+4) (now a possible 3/5-fit is discovered)

The main difference is bidding the 5+4 hand. FCTS just relays for spade length, Romex shows this hand via 3 (at the same time wrong siding the contract). Furthermore FCTS has a nice move with the 3-bid showing 3+5. Romex has an unwieldy 3 relay on which only a 4card is confirmed or denied.
Both methods bid the 5+4 hand via a Jacoby Transfer Bid, 2NT-3; 3-3 (wrong siding -contracts).

I think it's an improvement having 3 show 5+4, removing this hand from the JTB (you are not worse off than with a JTB; furthermore now you can use the JTB sequence to show 5/5 slam try, whilst 2NT-3; 3-4 is just a choice of games). The FCTS hand with 3+5 can be bid via a JTB, with opener's 3NT showing 2+5.
July 26, 2018
Paul Maris edited this comment July 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael,
What's the problem when partner transfers to spades? Your first example is a super-accept, the second is not.
We give up 3NT as super-accept, but we still do have the super-accepts of 4, 4, 4 and 4. You can even build in two messages in 4. So five messages for three side suits, good trumps and good contols seems sufficient.
Your second point is absolutely valid, however when opener is 2/5 in the majors the chance of finding a fitting 4card minor has been greatly reduced.
Finally you state “this seems to be a solution in search of a problem”. I don't agree, for two reasons. Firstly it solves a quite common problem (the 3/5 5/2 majors combination). And secondly, there is only a problem when the two phenomena coincide: rejecting the transfer whilst responder is 5/5 ST; in the vast majority of cases opener just accepts the transfer and no harm is done.

Edit add: after 2NT-3R; 3NT we use 4 as ST for opener's major.
July 24, 2018
Paul Maris edited this comment July 24, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
.

Bottom Home Top