Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Fleet
1 2 3 4 ... 368 369 370 371
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK - I misunderstood.
9 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do not understand why one would wish to trap oneself into a method whereby you have to prioritise giving information which might be of little interest over giving information which is almost certainly of far greater interest.

This is miles away from the situation where neither of these suits have been bid naturally.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Illustrating why 3 was poorly chosen.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, but it always shows four cards (plus) in clubs.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, one might argue that 3 was inadequate; but now isn't the time to be doing something about it.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the info, Neil.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very similar to Esko except that 4M over 3NT is constructive but NF.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm inclined to agree.
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't begin to understand the rationale. Partner has bid diamonds and it's not as though clubs are an unbid suit.
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Will declarer really play hand 4 like that? Why not duck a spade and succeed when spades are 3-3, with squeeze chances in reserve?
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Old-fashioned players like myself regard 2NT as natural.
20 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I bid in this situation, I am demonstrating clearly that I am out of my depth in “super expert” company.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that this hand should rebid 3. A club slam could easily be the par spot.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On Q1, I don't understand the 4 bid over 4 - with the hand improved by the 4 bid, surely 4 is right at this point.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you have a partnership agreement that double shows a strong hand with primary heart support, that's fine.

But I don't think that many people would have that agreement.
22 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have bid 4 over 3.
May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And if partner has Qxxx in hearts and out?
May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If partner has a balanced hand too strong for a 1NT overcall, I think that his continuation over 2 should be 2NT, not 3NT. A 3 rebid by me then gives a good picture.
May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm tempted to bid 4 showing a good 4 bid. On the other hand, it allows them to double which might not be to our advantage.
May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many years ago, a well-known English pair of the time started an auction 1-3-4-5. It didn't end well.
May 27
1 2 3 4 ... 368 369 370 371
.

Bottom Home Top