Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Robert Stevens
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 30 31 32 33
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Before we get to that, let's talk about the absurd 4 bid.
8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I really don't think 2 merits the scorn it is receiving.
One would certainly be very happy if P were able to bid notrump. He didn't, but I'll give him another chance with 2.
Feb. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, Alan, you are right. Darvas was Hungarian if I am not mistaken, and Hart may have translated.
Feb. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Heartily agree with both your choices… see my comment later. :)
Feb. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not an answer to the question, but I had to put in a plug for a little known, very entertaining book “Right Through the Pack” by Darvas (first name Robert?).

And I was most distraught at the untimely death of Frank Vine years ago, whose articles in the Bridge World were always entertaining.
Feb. 20
Robert Stevens edited this comment Feb. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems like an excellent treatment.
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually this problem is trickier than my first off-the-cuff comment. If declarer holds xx AKJ98x xx KQx the third round of might allow him a trump coupe. But partner holding Qxxx ought to be alive to that.
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The J must surely be right to give South a problem on the third round.

Edit: Just properly read previous (edited?) comment. But regardless of imps/matchpoints
you are not getting more than three tricks in the side suits, so the false card
must be the play.
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The theory, a sound one IMO, is that one never plays 2N. If opener has a min and/or a ragged suit it will likely be as good, or better, to play in three of the minor.

So playing 2N as forcing seems quite sound. But things get tricky thereafter. Forcing how high? Can opener, on a minimum 1462 pattern suggest by bidding them? If opener has a good hand, how can it be shown other than bidding 3N?

You might also want to look at this good article on the subject of 1m-1N; 2m by Jeff Rubens (TSAR):

https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/esoterica/TSAR.html
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Next.
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The hand you bid on is balanced. it remains balanced regardless of partner's hand.
And if 5 is making then 3 x is certainly going for a pair or three
And if he has 4 and a singleton then possibly, just possibly, he would
bid again, or have bid more the first time.
Feb. 15
Robert Stevens edited this comment Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, you are not alone. And certain commentators, having had their bid validated by partner raising, now think North should have driven to five. I can only shake my head.
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Luc bids on an eight loser balanced hand, then when partner validates the bid, dreams up some high card maximum for South with nearly a perfect fit (note the clever way that the red queen is in not so that the second ruff with a small card), and posits that North has a 5 call?

North has a clear double of 3. And that is between -3 (with every finesse wrong), and -1. (trump lead is clear).
Feb. 15
Robert Stevens edited this comment Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let's see. I have a four card suit to the jack, and an eight card suit to four of the five tops. Difficult.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't quarrel with 3 if you have such an agreement. But I am very leery of these so-called solutions which don't cover all cases. Ax AQx AKxxxxx x. Partner bids . And now?
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, Isn't that a close approximation to what I have? I submit that it is a closer approximation than the ghastly 2 reverse.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The trouble is that the reward is too paltry. Reverse the vulnerability and you may be in business. I agree that game is no given. The strength is overkill, and partner needs aces or strong for it to be good.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, he will probably let you play , and, no, he will never figure it out.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Luc. To answer your question: no, I don't think (it is a “huge” problem). Rainer summarises my thoughts perfectly.

And, Martin, does it “guarantee” four or more ?
Feb. 12
Robert Stevens edited this comment Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I dispute that contention. A reverse was not even forcing for the vast rank and file, and many, perhaps most, experts also.
Feb. 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 30 31 32 33
.

Bottom Home Top