Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Spencer Hurd
1 2 3 4 ... 18 19 20 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, my son john and some of his teammates play this, sort of. After 1C, a response of 2D is 10-15 with clubs and 2H is 16+ with clubs. Similarly for diamonds. A sort of Modified Criss-Cross. Thank you for the reference.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes I see your point. I wonder if this can be done after Opener's 1NT bid - Responder follows that 1NT with a jump to the 3-level.
I appreciate the ideas. There is a lot to digest at this point.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here 1C-1H 1NT-3C this is weak with clubs (usually 5).
Also, 1D-1H 1NT-3C again weak with clubs (usually 6)
But 1D-1H, 1NT-2C 2D-3C invitational with clubs (opener has at least 2 clubs so this might be passed.
1C-1H 1NT-2C 2D-2S here responder is 4-4 or 4-5 in the majors with invitational values, and if opener signs off with 2NT, then I would say 3D shows the 4-4-4-1 hand with singleton club and I expect 3D will be passed.
The benefits (over ordinary NMF) seem to me to leave problems on hands where game is not a good idea. But I haven't been playing this long enough to have encountered them.
For your question, it seems good to allow opener to quit with Responder's 2NT (since 2C by Responder is inv and 2D by Responder is GF). Why would a relay to 3C be needed?
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With 5 in responder's major, the auction goes differently-
1D-1H 1NT-2C 2D-2H
Here 2C forces 2D and 2H shows 5 with about 11 points (say 10+ to 12-). Now opener places the contract. This is part of 2-Way. Both responder's 2C and 2D are artificial. 2C (for invitational sequences) forces 2D, and 2D is artificial and game forcing.
July 14
Spencer Hurd edited this comment July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Difficult hand for all. I got the K lead (I opened 1NT and played 2 after a transfer). I won the A, won the club ace, ruffed a club. Led to my K and ruffed a 3rd club. I pulled a 2nd heart and led a third trump. North tried the underlead of a spade and I went up with the king and scored 11 tricks. Wish we had bid game.
June 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the context of a big club type system, passing 1 can be a challenge to the unwary opponents with up to 8-9 points. But yes, I agree with YS and KB, trying to improve a contract you will not play anyway is not wise - and 1NT doubled may have nowhere better to go, and partner is likely to want to run from 1NTX to 2. Partner here has 13 points; if 1NT could have as much as 12, I can see bidding 1NT can have other bad results - the opponents may pass or dbl your side when their game contract will fail.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
These are good points. I confess - I thought it better for me to get information than to worry about what the fine points of my bids might imply. My hearts reassured me that 6NT should be in the picture and that the East hand should declare if possible. If partner had bid 3 over my 2 bid, I would have found out about a 4-4 fit right away. Later, either 3 or 3 (to me) clearly pinpointed the lack of heart strength in West's hand. I would have bid 3 over 3. We open light on shapely hands and 3! was unhelpful really, suggesting a minimum hand. The auction went well from my point of view - It was helpful to have diamonds as the key card suit. Partne wa free to bid 7 directly over 5NT.
Actually, If I first bid 1, I would have no convenient (honest) rebid if partner responded 1NT or 2.
The idle chatter after the game was almost apologetic - no one bid the grand. But of course, the relief that 6NT was not a bottom score clouded the reality that 7NT (or 7) would have been foolishly risky. I was sure during the auction that the K was missing and one of the top spades was missing. I think using the force of an immediate 2/1 response is a great tool, not a weakness. The chatter on Bridgewinners, in contrast, is insightful and helpful.
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree, and thought about this sort of hoped for misplay (too late) as I surveyed the hand - no one will misplay in clubs after the 2 bid.
I assumed the squeeze in the black suits would be problematic since I have to discard 3 of my own spades. The “squeeze card” is the 4 in the dummy. I was sure that South would hold on to the 9 and I opted for what I assumed would be a pseudo squeeze if I did exactly as several have suggested - play the Q early and if not covered, rise with the ace. This worked as South oblidgingly covered. Actually, the clubs were 3-3 all the time. Both major kings were well placed, the diamonds and clubs each split evenly, but as my play at trick two shows, I needed all the help I could get.
At the end of the afternoon, all the EW pairs were asking one another, “Did you bid the grand?” My partner showed the K with that 6 bid and I was happy to get to 6NT not 6.
June 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A good question. It cannot be right to pass, at any form of scoring. The reason is that partner may have a very strong hand. Why should you decide this issue?
That said, as pointed out several times, this is a terrible 9-count. I think it's not good to jump to 3NT despite the rewards of scoring a vulnerable game. Partner knows about the rewards also. Consult partner. I invite game in all competitions (I use 2 for this which is more helpful to partner that a meaningless 2C). This is entirely a partnership issue, and with some 9-counts I will jump to game.
It may be different for professional players in the most difficult competition. Maybe the nature of the opponents will influence this sort of decision rather than the nature of the 9-count.
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Basically, the rule is this: no matter what your action is, your opponents may call attentiuon of the director to the BIT. Then later, if they receive any “bad” result whatever, then they are due redress unless you (and a panel) can convince the director that about 80% of those polled will take your same auction.
It matters not if the BIT is as described (half a minute or longer) or 5 seconds. Very often in these situations, there are these choices: pass, bid your suit, or double. You are fixed. It never happens that 80% of the players will choose ANY particular action.
Blame your partner. Bid in tempo.
None of the comments above have any particular significance. You cannot be barred. But the opponents may ask for redress if they do not like the result - and they will get it.
June 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, I went with the duck which occurred, not trying to complicate the story further. But that would be a heck of a play. The helpful fellow's kind offer and the eventual squeeze seemed enough. The ruffing squeeze is certainly elegant also.
May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First draft occurred before Bob Heller's recent elevation to President of the BOD. I hate to drop names.
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks.
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A least of evils lead, this sort of doubleton. I would lead the heart queen also. Glad they didn't.
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To play in the GNT's, you qualified for a Unit game by first finding 7 other local teams and playing a round robin, usually at people's homes. This ended and we now usually play a 4-round swiss at a local club. In any case, who would play if he/she could not qualify with his/her usual friends?
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
By the way, why is attendance (except at the local level) an issue at all? I am sorry the unit play-offs were discontinued and that we go straight to the District Finals. I think there is prestige for being the Unit or Disctict Champion for a year.
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Too good to merely click the LIKE flag.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With so many fine ideas in this blog, I wanted to chime in. First, the expense of attending a national at all is the single biggest concern for most ACBL members. The subsidy for qualifying teams (or pairs in the NAP) is important even if minute.
I don’t see the point of eliminating/reducing the number of professional players from the event (i.e., Open category). This doesn’t make sense. The top category does not affect the mass of local games at all.
What makes sense is to combine districts into Super Districts if the quantity of eligible players is extra small. Let all District playoffs be held at a convenient Regional, and I suspect attendance at these Finals will increase.
There is no reason I can see to have the GNT Finals at a National Tournament before the thing begins. Find a Regional for this also (maybe different Regionals for different flights).
I have had more fun at playoffs for pair and team events representing my district than at other tournaments.
Create more flights, especially where the greater mass of members is located. I suggest
Flights for 0-300, 0-750, 0-1500, 0-2500, 0-5000, 0-10k, and Open.
My former Unit 160 represented the entire state of SC. Some Units are smaller. Some Districts are rather small. Allow a Unit to sponsor 1 or 2 teams in each flight if it has enough qualifying games. This requires some adjusting of the rules and it will affect the arrangements for the playoffs at the finals – but such difficulties are easy to solve. The issue is whether enough BOD members actually think there is a problem to be addressed.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. I would not bid with the given 12 card hand or one with similar strength. I do not think that 2H shows extras, but I would certainly bid (2NT or 3C) at IMPs. At Matchpoints, I would also bid but I think the argument is not so strong.
April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With a 13 point 3-2-4-4 hand I would rebid 1NT most of the time - unless the spades were quite good. I don't see this as too important. Reverse the hearts and the spades and I would not raise to 2H.
As an aside, most hands with 3-2-4-4 can be opened with 1C or 1D, but the argument for 1D is minuscule when looking at Kxx, xx, xxxx, AKQJ. If the clubs are weakened to provide high cards for the 3 spades, the argument for avoiding a 1NT rebid is weakened also.
April 9
1 2 3 4 ... 18 19 20 21
.

Bottom Home Top