Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ronald Kalf
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You decided to invite, now stick to it. Do I have to quote Oscar the Owl again? If you really want to right your wrong listen to Ron the Greatest and double.
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, sorry to say so, but what you write is nonsense. 2M is to play and opener has to pass unless responder bids a second time in a competitive auction, period. Of course responder can bid 2M on anything he likes knowing that opener is systemically forced to pass. I admit that this opens the door for a risk-free psyche, but that doesn‘t make it psyche control.
In the good old days 1grape-3apple meant we have game if you psyched and slam if not. That was psyche control and I will never understand why this isn‘t allowed anymore. But those are the new rules. I don‘t like them but I adhere to them.
The two situations are definitely not comparable.
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fortunately I can have my cake and eat it too: our 2 can be 5-4 with 61/2-71/2 losers or value of 10-15 if you prefer. This hand looks perfect.
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul is right. That 12+12 is better then 16+8 is a fairy tale. Probably because „opening bid + opening bid is game“ but that was in the Goren days with an opening bid of 13+. Still I bid game with 12, but only because I don‘t like 2N-1 (in fact I don‘t like 2N at all). Consequently I don‘t invite with 1 either…I pass and play 1N (unless a foolish 4th hand reopens).
June 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Without an agreement certainly BW, in my partnership LTTC.
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1) I never invite if the max we can have is 25!
2) Of course I adjust for spot cards and placement of honours
3) 4333 is a big minus (I substract 2/3 points)
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
„Sadly, I think most don't think to discuss that issue much.“ …until it‘s to late. But at least we discuss it AND come to an agreement afterwards. I guess that‘s what makes a good partnership.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Craig, he wouldn‘t have a problem admitting forgetfulness of a recently added agreement and neither would I. I posted it to support your point of view. He compared it to 1M-2M which is stronger then usual in our system. My pov is that with a real max he is not obliged to bid 3.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
„There is very litle “gain” from carefully choosing between a “good 3X” vs. a “bad 2NT” followed by correcting 3♣ to 3X if partner doesn't have the same idea as you do about what hands might be suitable for each category.“ Absolutely agree. We play GB2N in lots of situations (see my comment upthread) and have recently taken up GB-X. Yesterday in a BBO practice match we had this bidding: 1-(3)-3-AP. Pard had QXx, AKQxx, KTx, xx. I thought he might have forgotten GB-X, but his view was that he needs more to accept the invite. My reasoning was that he should accept with a hand that would accept uncontested 1M-1N;2-3M. We now have this agreement.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In a competitive situation 2N is GB with the following exceptions:
1) if pass is forcing, 2N is natural
2) if pard’s last bid showed a 5crd M, 2N is fit-showing with high ODR
3) if 2N-bidder already had the opportunity to bid GB2N, but didn‘t 2N is scrambling or minors
4) if 2N-bidder has limited his hand within a 3 point range, 2N is scrambling or minors
5) if it is 200% clear to both that there is no game, 2N is scrambling or minors
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What else?
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A perfect analysis, but who would expect anything less from Kit. The beauty is that you can apply the reasoning to your own system and draw your conclusions.
June 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Randy, You are not alone…but of course we are still a minority.
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMO it’s good that Eugene observes the limits of what can be written on BW. I stopped reading Mr. Wilsmore‘s witch-hunt stories anyway.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Anytime we are forced to the 3-level in responders suit. This includes 1m-(p)-1-(2);X as well as 1m-(p)-1-(3);X. If opener can bid 2 in responders suit, this shows 3 and we bid 4th suit with 4. This is based upon an idea from Robson&Segal for a WNT environment.
We decided to keep the support double after seeing Kit‘s vote.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I changed my mind. Our book says support double and we‘ll keep it that way.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I’d say this is another example of the GB-X introduced by Kit in „avoid the ruffs“
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Taking this GB-X one step further, I‘d expect that X then 3N asks for a stopper. Consequently if the X is on 3 pard should bid 3N with and 4 without stopper. This treatment would make the famous Thrump-double superfluous or am I missing something?
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Something is missing from my comment, it should read:
If double is invitational you have to respond paradox style. So (2♦)-X-(3♦)-X;(P)-3 don‘t accept -inv and…-3 accept -inv, not -inv. Kit‘s method is superior because it‘s more important to show your suit if you want to invite. With a merely competitive hand you have already achieved your goal if opps bid one higher.
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If double is invitational you have to respond paradox style. So (2)-X-(3)-X
June 16
.

Bottom Home Top