Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ronald Kalf
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 71 72 73 74
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dave, don‘t get picky on me, I have already stated that I was not aware of the conditions. But even if I were aware, this is not the first thread where OP is asked to consider changing his methods.
Edit: under the condions now given I change my vote to FG.
July 20
Ronald Kalf edited this comment July 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not less then 3. In Roman 3 was possible with some 5-3-3-2. If your second longest suit is a doubleton (or 3 if) your longest suit is 6+. Open and rebid your longest. I can‘t imagine a canapé system where you open a (natural) doubleton.
July 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robin, even after rereading, I don‘t see 1=5 or support XX.ä
July 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are so many factors to consider, that I have to vote other. For most people I know, 1 would show 5 (and X 4). Now you have to realize that a classical support double, showing 3 is not necassary, maybe XX shows an honour (Rosencranz) If that is the case I wouldn‘t be surprised if 2 by opener is NF and 2 is used to differentiate between a competitive bid and a mild invitation. XX could also be defined as strong, willing to penalize opps. In that case 2 would be a strong bid and certinly FG. If however 1 shows 4+ (and X denies -stop as well as 4crd as I play), we have a normal support X and 2 should be forcing to 2N.
July 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not enough choices. Y-axis needs canapé, I propose: 3 1st suit can be 3 (Roman Club), 2 other.
Z-axis needs to include ambiguous 1 (Polish etc.) with or without 1 always unbalanced, make this -4/-5. Also add 1N forcing (to include Romex) and strong pass, I suggest -6/-7. Above XY-plane add 1 for 4=4=3=2 plus T-Walsh. I‘m sure I have forgotten something.
Now what I play with my regular partner is orange, 3, 5, -4 With a pick-up partner in Germany I would play yellow, 7, -5, 3, but with one partner at our club I can play yellow, 7, -5, -5
July 19
Ronald Kalf edited this comment July 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We ARE talking about suit contracts. Against NT A asks to unblock/count, making K ambiguous in theorie. However from AKxx you lead small, so I can only imagine K without Q from AKx trying to find partners length.
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With my former partner we played ambiguous K always (didn‘t we play like that in the good old days?). My new partner prefers highest of equals always and I have agreed (for now).
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Allowing a system to be played only at a limited number of events is effectively the same as banning it.
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sigh!
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some of us may have tried several of those and more. In my case I could add: Roman, Romex, Acol, KSU (not the sames as SA or 2/1), Regres, Forum D (German Standard). I have not played EHAA or Fantunes but did read about it. Anyway, voting is fun although the outcome doesn‘t surprise me, knowing that most BWers are from the USofA.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Henry, the difference between AKxxx, Qxx, Qxx, xx and AKxxxxx, Qx, Qx, Qx is around 4 tricks. In other words 5 may be to high or 7 could be lay-down.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don‘t understand the poll, but I do know that 4N is NOT RKCB.
July 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Double at MP is right out the (Kit‘s) book. Were I to play with an intermediate at my club, I cannot pass, because s/he would expect me to bid or double with or without hesitation. The hesitation probably indicates -support, so 4 is out even if I would consider it. With the W-hand given I cannot imagine that an intermediate at my club would pass. Of course this can be completely different in Paul‘s club. (Edited W-hand in stead of just hand).
July 15
Ronald Kalf edited this comment July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Possibly both 4 and 5 make. Even if the second X is t/o pard will often (have to) pass.
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
„So why would responder need to make a meaningless noise (4♦ LT)“ Because s/he does NOT have a control.
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
„If south's diamond were clubs slam would be excellent.“ That is exagerated!
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ah, you DO know the vulnerability, look at the diagram!
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that paterning helps to judge the fit, but give opener K in stead of K and slam is still less then 50%. Both were over optimistic.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I strongly agree with both of you.
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It may be nice to use the new poll possibilities, but in this case just one choice would be enough. Anyway I open 1, no second or third choice.
July 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 71 72 73 74
.

Bottom Home Top