Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Steve Moese
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 462 463 464 465
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Should have 3 at 2 level.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Prefer X as TO here. Am too strong for 2 or 2. Perhaps 2 will move partner along.
3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Without taking sides, I yearn for a clear explanation of intent from the formulators behind each of the laws - a body of work that unfortunately does not exist.
3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rare, but when it works it works beautifully.
8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They can play at my table anytime!
9 hours ago
2NT
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pavlicek’s dd table shows that, Len. Check it out!
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4 isn’t to stop them from reaching 4M. It’s to stop them from comfortably exploring further. The soft quasi defensive values in this hand suggest partner will be broke and they haven’t enough for slam.
9 hours ago
2NT
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nor upgrades and off shape opening we all do from time to time. But the tendency is still interesting.
9 hours ago
2NT
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is utility in understanding the trends and “boundaries” suggested by an imperfect tool.
Insight, not dogma.
10 hours ago
Steve Moese edited this comment 10 hours ago
2NT
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
See http://www.rpbridge.net/8j25.htm#1
double dummy analysis -
Makes 2N or more about:
20-0 makes 4.8%
20-1 makes 10.4%
20-2 makes 23%
20-3 makes 44%
20-4 makes 67%
21-0 makes 10.6%
21-1 makes 18%
21-2 makes 40.3%
21-3 makes 62%

This does not include declarer advantage / tricks from single dummy decisions.
10 hours ago
Steve Moese edited this comment 10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IIRC, BridgeWorld published an analysis based on frequency and estimated benefit years ago. Cannot find the reference. Maybe others can help.

by the way you left out Flannery, Roman, Mini-Roman, and others. Schenken played specific Ace asking for example.
10 hours ago
Steve Moese edited this comment 10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Absolutely.
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tell me where general bridge knowledge, history and culture do not intersect?
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An ancient approach uses 4 as control showing and 5 as Ace/Key asking.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Several things to consider.
Common here is New Suit NF Constructive. It is possible to play new suits forcing, but you will be passing many hands with poor fit for partner when another strain is fine. New suits as weak will lose the ability to show competitive values.

How do you play the cue bid? Two common treatments:
Q only non force - here you begin wiping the Qbid and rebid at your earliest opportunity.
Q LR or better, promising support for partner’s suit. Here a jump to 3 would show a GF hand with no fit for . Some might play 3/4 as a fit jump showing 9+ cards in the Majors with at least 3 cards.

The focal point is whether your priority is to show partner a fit or to show your own suit. I strongly urge Fit First. If partner demurs, then you can offer . New suits after a Qbid are forcing.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Harald. I posted this to Unit 124 and D11's websites. Everyone with interest should read this. Thanks!
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The minute you have a 1M-1N auction with this partner again, and the thought “S/he did this with 3 points before” creeps into your mind you are working on an implied agreement - past behavior you are aware of and expect partner may do again.

I am not advocating that ONE instance causes an implied agreement. That was rash of me. David says it well.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My head hurts….
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You now have an implied agreement about 1N.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about a poll where people value the presence of their conscience in their lives?

“Police” is a non-starter and a poor analogy.
Jan. 17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 462 463 464 465
.

Bottom Home Top