Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ronald Kalf
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 51 52 53 54
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2N is (IMO) indeed the most unatractive contract of all.
54 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMO(!) the problem is the preemptive opening bid itself, one of the reasons why I prefer multi- or strong 1-systems. Even in these systems there are problems if the first to bid natural has and the second has . Often it makes sense to have a natural -bid and a -bid to show . In this case 2-2N(=);3 shows a minor and 3 asks, then 3/ shows / without suport and 4m shows m with support. 2-2N;3 shows and responder can bid 3 with and 3 without support. I haven‘t worked it out in detail, but use similar structures in comparable sequences after our Polish 1.
an hour ago
Ronald Kalf edited this comment 56 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, everything I write reflects my opinion, even if I do not explicitly write it. I assume the same is true for you and your posts.
8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mind you, I sometimes prrempt when I know even less about opps holding. Like in 1st seat.
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I double because I have a good lead, we may be able to beat 1N even if opps have bop. If opps have bop they will sit (and so would we). The doubles with a balanced hand are contraproductive. I‘m of course talking about direct position. In the balancing seat, I‘m not on lead and will double on power, but only if opps are non-vulnerable. Again: independent if NT-range.
14 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And why should they? No matter what control I show, my partner can never show the same control below 4. I probably still don‘t understand.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing Precision, I‘d open 1N (my preference 11-13) or 1. I don‘t punish my partner for balancing, pass now and lead 9.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A waste, anything (apart from allowing only 2) is better.
Nov. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Petter, of course both players can show control: over 3 3N shows control, any other bid denies control. If pard doesn‘t sign-off s/he implies control.
Nov. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I‘ve played a WNT for most of my bridge life. I have good but not perfect runout without a double and almost perfect runout if we are doubled. The worst scores we get, is when we have to play 1N undoubled vulnerable because responders hand is not suitable for a runout.
Nov. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I double with a good suit to lead and a side entry. Pard is expected to pass with some values and at least two stoppers. Without that s/he bids 2 as p/c or bids a long suit. I don‘t care if WNT or SNT.
Nov. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not strange at all: I like to bid with a distributional hand, but a t/o-X is not very distributional. Just wait and if 2 is passed around to you, you can double. Showing a two-suiter is more important. I am even willing to give up X for the lead to show both suits immediately. 2N=+, X=+OM, 2M=+OM.
Nov. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Depends upon your agreements for direct bids. If you could have indicated a t/o-X after 2, X is purely balancing and 2N is scrambling. If you still can have a t/o-X, game is still possible and leb is on.
Nov. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I currently play 3N non-serious. Limited information as long as slam is not likely. Flipping 3/3N is better, but easier to forget. I don‘t like #1 it‘s neither consistent nor does it prevent information leakage.
Nov. 22
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Nov. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It depends, but not just upon your holding in the doubletons. More important is, if your system can handle whatever you choose to open. In a purely natural system (whatever that is nowadays) you may have to refrain from telling the whole truth, in a full relay system you probably have no choice other then to follow your system.
Nov. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Penalty this time.
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can‘t X 1 without , t/o. Penalty was before I started playing bridge, maybe befire being born.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Art, I didn‘t vote in your previous poll, but I voted mostly W now. E could have made a move (4 being my choice) but it is borderline. W should X then bid . If E bids 4 the Q gains and 5 shouldn‘t be a problem.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What is sooo good about xxx without ruffing values?
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At least in WJ2005 (the latest I have) X is support or strong without a bid. What is 2N (not mentioned in WJ2005)? My solution is to bid 2N with the strong variant (I know rightsiding problem) and 3 specifically strong, long m, no stopper. If 3 is your only way to show the strong variant, you have a problem. My partner complains about the size of our book, but it avoids being in such a situation ATT.
Nov. 18
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Nov. 18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 51 52 53 54
.

Bottom Home Top