Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Robert Stevens
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 24 25 26 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I too. We are too likely to be able to go +110 with the slow tricks, and the opponents too unlikely to go -150 in 1N. I think even if opps were vul I would bid.

Nobody wants to double for penalties more than I (see postings), but I have found that defending 1N is just too difficult, with too much riding on the opening lead. I like the method espoused by Martin & Lynn.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I strongly favor this approach. What does advancer (is that the proper word.. I can't keep up) want always to do with modest values, and a five card major: explore for the 5-3 fit. Overcaller's strength is not well defined, and one way to limit the hand is the ability to pass. I like the Rubens approach that change of suit isn't forcing, but that 2N is: we play in 3N or 3m but never in 2N. Rubens transfers are also, when available, an excellent idea.
14 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
James Vickers doesn't like the lengthy match reports in BM, and I tend to agree w.r.t BW, although BW has plenty of other content, which it would seem BM does not. I find the match reporting rather dull. I doubt that many agree, but I think these match reports could be livened up some with humor, a point of view, and, yes, controversy.
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think it is a gross mis-characterisation to describe East's hand as minimum. It is better than rock bottom, absolutely, but the unprotected minor honors and lack of 10 are flaws.
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I urge everyone to do so. I roused myself and did so. And while we are on the subject, we should all be thinking about the BW and its likely fate. I have restarted my subscription to it even though my interest in many of the articles is marginal – it's just so important to the future of the game.
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh, and BTW: should you not have beaten it four? That perhaps should be your focus: +200 was likely worth 75% of the matchpoints.
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are a number of possibilities, and the bidding style of EW is germain. But at matchpoints West simply cannot allow the opponents to play 3 undoubled at this vulnerability.
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You partner's contention is pure resulting, not to mention that you were fixed by South's suicidal 2N. North obviously knew what to expect from South's predelections.
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the clarification, Dale. Do u know theissue#? As far as the merit of reversing the meaning of 2 and 3: it is allowing for an easy raise of the minor without going past 3N – the key decision. Another possibility which I think worth considering is to exchange the meaning of preferences bids after a high reverse: 1-2; 3 now 3 is a raise and 4 agrees (one can also do other jiggling including the fourth suit)
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Andy,I open that hand 1. But, yes, 5=1=5=2 is a problem after 1-2. Then I may have to break system: rebid the or bid 3 depending upon suit quality and hope for the best. The flaw in my method is clear, but having to rebid any poor five card suit can also lead to bad results not as readily attributable to the method.
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good point David – I mixed up the two defensive plays T2.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good luck with the long
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My “algorithm” is that the 2M rebid shows 6, or a five card suit that can play for one loser opposite minor honor doubleton. I use 2N as the dump bid, and 2N can have a singleton in partner's suit. Five cards in a lower ranking suit than partner's without extra values is a problem (but as previously said, I open 1 with 5-5 in the blacks)
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom, did you ever play that after 1-2 that 2= and 3=? Seems as thought that might be another useful switch.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, I understand your point of view (hey, but remember how nobody can double you for penalties anymore :) ). But it may not be a part score hand the way people bid now. Would you be that surprised to have partner show up with xxxx Axx Kxx xxx? Yes, a perfecto, granted. Substitute the K for a small one in my example, and 4 is still down opposite the hand posed by Avon
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Done. (Prior to your post I didn't even know that BM was still extant).
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This might be a good place to interject another idea, which certainly is not my own: that 2 shows clubs, and 3 spades. There is still a problem sorting out extra values, but there is more elbow room when opener has the minor; now 3N by responder can show a misfitting mid-range hand, and can be agreed economically, as can . The original article, many moons ago, was in the Bridge World: “Cheap More Tell” (a reference to a certain world champion's name).
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A surprising number of pundits seem to think that partner's 3 shows some whale. Really? Do they mean that they would pass Ax xx AQxxxx Axx? I cannot understand how anyone could justify bidding on this: I have no hand, and no fit – but perhaps my horoscope was favorable.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am with Ian, once held: Jxxxx - AQxxx Axx, and opened 1. Somebody is going to bid . Whether that somebody is partner or the opponents it will be extremely inconvenient to have opened 1. It is also why I nearly always open 1 on 5-5 in the black suits; in another thread disagreement rages about that topic
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How could shifting to a possibly be the percentage play? You find your partner with QJ and… so what? A shift would have netted the required four tricks.
Dec. 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 24 25 26 27
.

Bottom Home Top