Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ronald Kalf
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In solemn moments such as this I have put my trust and all my faith in partner. If pard says game, I'm not going to settle for less.
Oct. 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why “unpunish” S for his disastrous bid?
Oct. 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Slam try! I don't understand the options given: A game try, if we already have game? Maybe I don't understand “last train”, but isn't that a bid directly under game in the chosen domination? Part score? Don't you trust your partner or your own bid?
Oct. 18, 2016
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Oct. 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BECAUSE it uses up a lot of space, it should draw a precise picture. After all, if there is a fit it is either a - or a -fit, if not partner can sign-off with 3N. Opener is way to strong for a splinter in this case. I've never played a nebulous 1M-2, but if I did, I probably would have a 2-relay to sort things out.
Oct. 17, 2016
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Oct. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“When evaluating strong hands, I consider a major one-suiter with four losers and a minor one-suiter with three losers worth opening two clubs regardless of high-card points.” Nothing new, just read “How to play winning bridge” by Edgar Kaplan and Alfred Sheinwold, published 1958. But that doesn't mean they used LTC all over.
Oct. 15, 2016
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Oct. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The auction 1-2; 3-3; 4 means “I would try for slam if you hadn't given me a negative”. In my partnership we have two ways to accept the game try: 4 or 3N with a slam-suitable hand. Keps the bidding low for slam evaluation, but doesn't take away bidding space should opener make a slam try.
Oct. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can only abstain. 3 shows , fine, but how strong? 3 shows 3 in , fine, any other information? I agree with Craigs evaluation: N is worth 19 points IN SUPPORT OF . Unfortunately N doesn't know about S . As long as I don't know what 3 promises, I cannot say if N is serious or non-serious. Assuming it shows 15+ 3 is timid. IMO 4 should show a double fit 4 in and 3 in with a minimum 2/1.
Oct. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the question was directed to experts only, I humbly apologize. Otherwise here is my view. I use NLTC in two situations. 1) borderline decisions whether to open with a forcing bid (in our case 1), 2) with a two-suiter. I never add losers and substract, which is no good in case 2) anyway (we combine NLTC with cover cards there).
Oct. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rely on their own analysis based on the bidding and their hand. Sometimes this analysis includes LTC.
Oct. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A misunderstanding. If you have defined your opening bids, you have 10% of the effort on your bidding system. Follow-up definition make up the rest of the effort.
Oct. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And nobody mentions Polish Club? I've played Precision and a Precision-like system with very light opening bids and hated the nebolous 1. I will probably never understand why Precision is played with SNT nowadays. Meanwhile I love Polish but with a WNT.
BTW: The basics (strong , 4/5M SNT/WNT, Canapé, …) make up only 10% of your system.
Oct. 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course I would have led J ATT, but the way you present the problem it can only be 9.
Oct. 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even playing Kaplan-Sheinwold I would not reverse. 1-1; 1N.
Oct. 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First of all, I haven't discussed this exact situation therefore 3 is forcing according to our general rule. Of course Frances' rule has its merits, but not if she plays against me. I need very little excuse to bid 2 plus we open light. OTOH Frances probably has a few gadgets going with the rule. GB2NT might do the trick too. There are currently some items with a higher priority on my list, but I will add this one.
Oct. 10, 2016
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Oct. 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Right you are. I would add that even at MP many are statisfied with any plus score if they don't have the majority of the points.
Oct. 10, 2016
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I didn't write “do not use gadgets”, I wrote “do not use gadgets unless you have at least 27 points between you”. 2 reasons: 1) with less game is close, 3N needs only 9 tricks and 3N makes because opps do not have sufficient information; 2) with more not only do you have better chances to take 11 tricks, if the hands fit you might even take 12.
Oct. 9, 2016
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In order for 5 to be good, you need to make 3 more tricks compared to 3N. Just bid 3N and don't give opps even more information. Don't use any gadgets to get to 5m in stead of 3N unless you have at least a joint 27 points.
Oct. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, you forgot “none of them”. It is importand to HAVE an agreement and Larry's advice is certainly not the worst. The way I play it: 1) shortness ask, 2) 3 is LST, 3 is "nothing in but maximum otherwise, 3) stopper, could be advanced cue-bid, 4) stopper, assuming inverted minors slam is highly improbable in our system.
Oct. 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why is that? Two places to play. Correct 3 to 3.
Oct. 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What exactly is a cue-bid double? If this includes fit plus slam try it's hardly passable.
Oct. 6, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top