Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Scott Needham
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Splinters, which may be 4x1, include more hand types than Fit Jumps, which most seem to require as 5-4-3-1 or 2-2. But I'm with the two levels crowd.
May 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem would seem to be teams asking and being allowed to play up that end up being cannon fodder and skew the match-ups while getting their ‘much better bridge experience.’

Perhaps this kind of thing could be monitored in a database – a ‘don’t let these guys do it' flag – but it would also seem like it would be very, very difficult to manage unless there are specific exceptions. Like: ‘Qualifying members of US national representative teams may apply to the tournament organizer for an exemption.’ So get out the keyboard or pen and paper and write your District BOD and urge them to push the issue at the national BOD.
May 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hey, all my partners: See how good those inv+ splinters can be?
May 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
CZ: Or (last example sequence in another structure) 1-1M/1N-2/2-3. I believe the 2N–>3 relay adds value for alternative slam tries at the 3 level. YMMV.

BL: I don't see why XYZ should be off in any comp unless 2 is not available. I'll trade off the inability to play 2 here, as in many other structures, for the advantages it offers. YMMV.
May 28, 2018
Scott Needham edited this comment May 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
CZ: In many versions of XYZ, the jump to 2N relays to 3, either to play there or go forward to describe some slammish 4M-5m or 5M-4m. And 2–>2 then 2N denies 4cd . It's a complicated world.
May 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, what I meant by “what went unused”: I was afraid partner, who is relatively unused to XYZ, wouldn't realize it was on in this sequence.
May 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
forcing, balanced raise.
May 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actual 2 hand: Q=Axx=KQxxx=Jxxx. Most days I'd open this, I guess, but didn't like the stiff Q. Wanted partner to be in NT if he held Qx or maybe J9x or similar.
May 27, 2018
Scott Needham edited this comment May 27, 2018
UI?
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In many structures, 3 would show 5cd and a max, tolerance for . I hope partner hasn't overcalled a 1=5=(3-4), b/c we will play in from my side. Which sucks.
May 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've gotten flack from opps for alerting Serious/NonSerious 3N. Some TDs like the alert, some have told me not to do it.
May 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK. So if it goes 1♠-2♣/2♥-3♠/4♣-4♦/4♥-4, is responder saying go ahead if you are better than absolute min?
May 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was asking about responder?
May 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK, here's a question for those who chose “Serious”: What kind of hand do you expect partner to hold for initiating Ser3N? I realize this is a broad question, but we can presumably eliminate a lot of source-of-tricks blockbusters and focus on some of the more mundane shapes?
May 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Still like the idea of 4 showing 5=2=4=2 with extras, not sure about the ‘no controls’ part of it.
May 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This partnership doesn't play any form of Neb2, but would use 2 with a big balanced hand, 3cd and extras, no Baronish sequence available for 16-17 flat. David, if it suits your analytics, the sequence could well have been 1-2/2-2/3-3, where 3 intitiates Ser3NT.
May 10, 2018
Scott Needham edited this comment May 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree. And is it not likely that very soon you will be in answering mode after 1♠-2♣/2♥-3♠/4♣-4♦/4♥-4N? Won't a large percentage of even 17-18 count responding hands put us in a failing slam?
May 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's the little compass-looking thingie on the viewer's right of the row of icons above the composition block on the “create / poll” page.
May 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wouldn't you also say “not only no extras, but rock bottom”? or would you?
May 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good catch–fixed. Damn computer users.
May 9, 2018
Scott Needham edited this comment May 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I hope we can pursue some discussion aimed at nailing down best practice in the Ser3N context. Phil Clayton's recent problem was instructive. So now I ask: Is this a slammish rock-bottom minimum?

Focusing on shape and controls is of course one aspect of these evaluations. What about high card strength in general? Are we always gonna be operating in “I know it when I see it mode” (not a bad thing) or can we flesh out some Stuff? Is Stuff superfluous, in the sense that Stuff is too constraining? A possible answer is: You worry too much.

What does a happy-to-hear-4, 16 count balanced (no splinter) responding hand do now? My answer is: Assume 5-level safety and use the Stuff you do have. Is this consensus?

If both now continue to cooperate – say 1-2/2-3/4-4/4, which is what I think most would construct – how “bad” does S have to be to try to eschew RKCB or whatever key-asking flavor one prefers? How good to continue?

Could Opener hold KJxxx x KQx Axxx? I'd say certainly: Is this consensus?

Could s/he hold KJxxx x KQx AQxx? I'd say no, this is a Ser3N call over 3: Is this consensus?
May 9, 2018
Scott Needham edited this comment May 9, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top