Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Scott Needham
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting. Reese votes would seem to represent emphasis on play, while Lawrence votes would seem to represent emphasis on bidding. Am I wrong?

EDIT: My vote for Lawrence is influenced by the clarity and instructional nature of his writing, his production of wide-ranging and solidly practical ‘user manuals’ for the advancing player.
Feb. 22, 2018
Scott Needham edited this comment Feb. 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“It's also a lot closer to GF than 1♦-2♣ is….”

True dat. My least favorite thing about K-S.
Feb. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I'm playing WNTs, and someone asks, I say “WNT 2/1, with lots of gadgets.” Systemic refinements aside, I'm fairly certain that for the vast majority of the folks at whom these polls are aimed, “2/1” means that 1M-2lower is game forcing.
Feb. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Except in K-S, 1-2 is not GF.
Feb. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I still tout the Walsh-Lawrence style: NT by either partner to show cards in unbid majors, and 2/3major by either partner to show 4 cards (until the auction has denied a 4cd major). So it is helpful, when responder holds xx=KQx=Kxx=AQxxx, and similar, that 2 shows 5+ cards so s/he can call 3. And, when the bidding goes 1-2/2-3, we know a lot – maybe enough to be able to play in the disgusting 4m.
Feb. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I seem to remember a treatment called “Godfather 2NT.”
Feb. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I need a bid to show 8 in the major….
Feb. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Waiting for Yuan and others to sing the “18-19 balanced goes into 2” refrain. And, yes, RFR is a winner on this layout.
Feb. 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1-(1)-1-(P )
2-2N
3-4
4N-5
7

4 = Non-Serious
Between the likely pitch(es) and a ruff or two, 13+ tricks seems likely.

EDIT: A guy goes to all this trouble to set up a bit of humor – OK, a small bit of humor – and no one bounces him. Sheesh.
Feb. 11, 2018
Scott Needham edited this comment Feb. 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
C'mon Phil, free the cheese! Where is this Google doc of which you speak?
Feb. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've bid 8 out of my last 5 slams, and graciously accepted IMPs from incompetence or brain farts. But never this congruence.
Feb. 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For those who use Bergen: A good splinter can be bid using the 3m weak variation, then short. When I started, a couple of partners like to conceal the strong version in 1NTF. Didn't like that too much.
Feb. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, we never get dealt a hand that strong.

I'm not the partner who likes the 2 double negative; hands of the variety you mention, even with a x, are virtually unsolvable without Stuff–which most (well, virtually all) of my partners would not want to commit to memory.

I was S. Our best 2 hand is something like Q J J J, without stacking honors/spots. Partner held Qxxx=AKQxxx=void=AKQ. I think it is difficult to envision a trick in the S hand; if I had held an xx I would've gone to game. At the other table, N bid game.

Like most, I really like to win the post mortem, but so far I' not. Sigh.
Feb. 1, 2018
Scott Needham edited this comment Feb. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like the utility of the jump to 3M showing 5+m-4M. I like the utility of the 3M jump setting trumps. The S hand, with sturdy combinations, pushes the limits of a 2 negative (usually 3 Qs around here). I'd probably open 2 and Kokish to 3N (26+, and just in the nature of things, usually a source of tricks), then puppetish to 6.

Inelegant.
Jan. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I seem to remember Dave Caprera stating that Eddie Wold plays 1M-2X/2Y-3M jump as a splinter.
Jan. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems to me that this option involves adding the “major support picture bids” treatment to the arsenal. Not saying it is bad, they serve a meaningful function, just saying it seems difficult for the community to come up with a simpler system that does not involve treatments for hand types that we have discovered, in the course of our educations, could benefit from more detailed understandings.

Also note that the two hands, above, imply drastically different versions of this treatment; TT's seems more in keeping with what I take to be “USA 2/1 Standard.”
Jan. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted for setting trumps, strong and slammish, which I ake to be “USA 2/1 Standard,” but note that in a more developed structure including Ser/Friv3N, it can be used efficiently as a splinter.
Jan. 23, 2018
Scott Needham edited this comment Jan. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good points about 3. Now I just need to figure out what to do when it goes (1)-2NT-(P )-?, and ? holds Axx xx xxxx AJxx opposite x AKQxx x KT9xxx.

SC: Probably as many as they could bid. But the decision whether to sac is independent of the constructive bidding issue. N's decision would likely arise after W made whatever defensive call s/he thought appropriate over 2N (with about a K more than s/he is likely to hold in the OP layout?); 3 would probably not be available; and the defensive call would be informative.
Jan. 22, 2018
Scott Needham edited this comment Jan. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Went back to the source, which does recommend the X when holding the strong minor-oriented hand after RHO calls 1M.
Jan. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good argument for the newer Italian style: Bid your suit, then X at the rebid to show extras.
Jan. 21, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top