Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Scott Needham
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 26 27 28 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And then there's the time I had conflicting answers….
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
fjords? fnords, more likely….
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ATT, there is usually a kerfluffle when the bid was unintended, but chagrin at the director call when it was insufficient. “immediately realize your mistake” makes me strongly suspect the former, but nothing was said about “your” behavior.
April 17
Scott Needham edited this comment April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Repeating my comment on a similar thread: I seem to recall that in my first KS book, it was advised that AK, A in a 4432 was an opening bid, but A,K,A was not. For me, that's R22 at the most basic level.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Staunchly adhering to my R22 standards, I'm not opening. NB: I seem to recall that in my first KS book, it was advised that AK, A in a 4432 was an opening bid, but A,K,A was not.
April 17
Scott Needham edited this comment April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing Neb2 the way I prefer:

1-2
2 (denies 6, denies 4, denies 4+, denies 18-19 bal, denies ability to call 3, therefore either some 5-3-3-2 or 5, 4+)-2
3 (no extras, short, therefore Opener is 5=3=4=1 or 5=3=5=0)-3 (control)
3N (NotSer, denies control)- 4 (lots of info)

If South could call 3, then 4 would be a fit, and 4 would be real , but that's a different layout, now, isn't it….

EDIT: It occurs to me that responder might well call 4 over 3N – what TBW editors like to call a “delicate” bid – showing the fit. Opener might hold AQJx in , and someone might decide to play slam on spec for two 3-2 splits.
April 16
Scott Needham edited this comment April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I need a new obsession. I thought SARF might be a thing, something I NEEDED to know….
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bourke relay. Or, if playing Reverse Flannery Responses, Other Major Game Forcing.
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are all sorts of structures in which users assume the risk of missing a 4-4 major fit. WNT opposite a weak hand (SNTers open 1m), SNT opposite a weak hand (WNTers open 1m) to name the most obvious. Meh.
April 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
moved
April 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also want to note that we'd play 1-2/3 with this layout, 3 showing the solid suit, asking cues.
April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of those fundamental issues. I'd open an AK, A 4-4-3-2, but not 4333. Decided to get rigid with the Rule/22.
April 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
New suit = short, 2N asks: 3M = 3cd, else suit = short w/4cd support, 3N = bal 4cd. Ser3N, KB.

After a 2 rebid, we play 2M = 3cd, new suit = short, 4cd, 2N = bal 4cd.
April 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play the 2 rebid only for nondescript openers. With a good hand, one that will be in game regardless, opener starts game/slam tries immediately.
April 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
what about 4, no stiff, 10 or 11 HCP? Pretty please? That was my original comparator.
April 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After studying the NLTC/LTC writeups, it seems to me that these methods get me to the same place as more standard hand evaluation/judgment methods.
April 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I note the current plurality vote in the OP. Some time ago, I did a casual (read “incompetent”) sim of Axxx x Axxx xxxx as against a balanced 11 HCP LR. I had always thought the first was a good LR, but layouts with the bal LRs scored more tricks significantly more often.

Maybe someone can run a competent sim?
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
CG: I find this discussion very instructive on the main issues: What does a NSer3N try look like, and what does it need to look like in order to cooperate opposite a waffling partner? It highlights the most critical of bidding issues, hand evaluation in the context of whatever stuff one plays. As others have written, there is a wide range of opinion re: the creds of the OP holding. The rest is a matter of constructing hands for responder, trying to justify the 4 advance of NSer3N (no K, the gorilla in the room) in context of the 4 stop.

For any of this to be reasonable, I conclude that responder should have a big HCP holding with a questionable control. I note that AJx KJTx KQJx xx (not even that big) is good opposite something like KQxxx Qxx Ax Axx (which would probably get more folks up into the 6-8 range), but is responder justified in casting about for a similar holding? Is opener justified in moving over 4 with such a holding? That's the crux for me, and the main takeaway – I like to learn something when I beat my brains against a rock – is that I'd like to have a way to highlight Q opposite K, which is one issue provoked by the actual sequence.

I think CM's various posts of March 22 and thereabouts are descriptive of the main ‘structural’ issues. Yet these posts are made in a context in which he opines that (a) responder's hypothetical AJx Kx KQx QJ10xx is not strong enough to risk the 5 level and (b) the OP hand is a “5.” To which the Cherrypicker responds “Is opener's KQxxx Qxx xx AKx also just average? Would opener cue the K with this, risking the 5 level opposite a Neb2 responder who has GFed but apparently provided no valuable shape information?”

Presumably, slight changes to opener's mitt – KQxxx(x) x Axx(x) Axx – would move it up in the value matrix for many if not most of the “5/6” evaluators. But even one of these won't go in context of a responder lacking the K. Which, of course, is why so many pass 4.

I need a nap.
March 29
Scott Needham edited this comment March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
More ‘picking: AJx KJTx KQJx Qx (K&R 15.8)?
(Irrelevant, but we could be off 9 cards in at 3N from responder’s POV.)

EDIT: Cherrypick along: What's opener's best hand for NSer3N? KT9xx Kx(x) Ax(x) Ax(x)? Gill's hand, above, maybe with K thrown in–or is that a Ser cue?
March 27
Scott Needham edited this comment March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good point, unless you're one of those pairs that use the higher to show both (not for me). AJx QJxx KQJx QJ? I guess the crux is, one can cherrypick hands 'til next year, but the auction until 3N was remarkably uninformative; maybe we think responder with a (yes, quacky: K&R 14) 17 count should not be cuing?
March 27
Scott Needham edited this comment March 27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 26 27 28 29
.

Bottom Home Top