Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Scott Needham
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 30 31 32 33
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play the jump as invitational, but I don't like it. IMHO, Norman Kay got much the better of Peter Pender in their old TBW debate.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I must say, apart from the fact that the vote loses me $$, that I am surprised by these results. The subject hand is a 6 1/2 loser by conservative LTC, and 13 by K&R and Pavlicek, and that is before partner opens 1. How many respondents allow partner to open a 10 or crappy 11 count?
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For me, these auctions show unbalanced hands. No alert, but an explanation before the lead.
Oct. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For some real fun, check out “Compressed Bergen.” 1M-2N = 4+ trump and 0+ HCP.
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please drop over to “You hold: Axx AJT AKx KQxx”
Sept. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please drop over to “You hold: Kxx Kxxx QJxx Ax”
Sept. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Re: the RFR options, if playing REF I like the 2 call here to mean “I am two-suited and VERY weak, POC.” Similar after 1m-1/1N-2, uncontested.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
GR: Thanks. That was my intuition, especially the part about having a good game, but I haven't trusted my math intuition since those damned Hamiltonians.
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have taken to a procedure such as the strict liability idea advocated by Perkins, above. It seems to work. I am more interested in which procedure would give the offenders the worst hit to their score, assuming that this is a solvable math problem.

This issue arose when a very good player, who is part of a consistently slow partnership, asked another director to “punish” any late play by them by taking away the board rather than docking mps.
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The version of Wolffie I learned uses this sequence – 1m-1M//2N-3C//3D-3N as the SI in O's m–THE ONLY STRONG CALL THAT GOES THROUGH 3C.
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Looks to me like E was afraid 4 over 4 would be taken as an offer.
Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Curious: Why couldn't S be 11-14 count, 4-1-3-5?
Never mind: Answered upthread.
Aug. 24
Scott Needham edited this comment Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
or 4x1….
Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks to all, these perspectives have eased the way. Just FWIW, I had seen one scheme that opens 1D on (4-1)=3=5. Mush.
Aug. 7
Scott Needham edited this comment Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've read some structures in which 1 virtually promises 9+ cards in the minors or 6+. So some people apparently play that 1 can be unbalanced with 5+ , implying (3-1)=4=5 also opens 1.
Aug. 6
Scott Needham edited this comment Aug. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nope, got that; 1 stuff is the simplest part of the structure, right? It's more to do with what hands go into 1D – I've seen differing approaches – and how to untangle them. Response structures seem unintuitive. And your link leaves something dangling:

3.1.2 Opener’s medium rebids
3.1.3 Opener’s strong rebids
3.1.4 Responder’s transfer noncompletion
3.2 Other responses

Sadly, no Stuff in these.
Aug. 6
Scott Needham edited this comment Aug. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Learned playing K-S, and still advocate the lessons learned about driving minor suit auctions.

Playing WNT, it is important to realize that responder knows more about the deal, and where it should play, than anyone else at the table. One of the strongest features of the WNT is the immediate preemption possible by responder; but I also still believe that one of the weaknesses of the WNT – unless playing transfers – is the strong two-suited responding hand.
Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We use the 4 ask as a suit quality, rather than keycard, ask. The rationale is that partner will hold fewer hands with an outside A, except, maybe, with a weak 2, and we are more often interested in the quality of the preempt suit. Perhaps this is a fine distinction, but I'd like to know whether others have been persuaded to this alternative.
July 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bud: Yes, they do. It sucks IMHO.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, here and on Moese's thread you have confirmed that you have observed a shift – can you quantify your observations re: change across the last 10 years or so?
July 17
Scott Needham edited this comment July 17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 30 31 32 33
.

Bottom Home Top