Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Tom Edwards
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems very likely that opener will rebid 2 and I'll have another chance to bid hearts.
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Opening 1NT=14-16
Oct. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, you may well be describing the way Smith was originally suggested by I.G. Smith. I don't know. It seems to me to have some of the elements of what I know of as Modified Smith.

In his 1995 book, “Defensive Signals,” Marshall Miles suggested an improvement to Smith. In Regular Smith, when declarer wins a trick and plays a new suit, the partner of the opening leader shows a particularly good holding in the opening lead suit by echoing in declarer's suit. Many play that an echo by either defender shows enthusiasm for the opening lead suit.

Playing Miles’ Modified Smith, the player with the “implied length” echoes to show a particularly bad holding in his suit and requests a shift. Implied length would usually be opening leader’s suit, but it could be the suit of opening leader’s partner’s if he had bid that suit.
Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They play Reverse Smith.
Oct. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A great player once told me that any 5-6 hand that's an opening bid is good enough to reverse. Maybe an over simplification.
Sept. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the options presented are those for an uncontested auction. How would partner bid with, say, 16 hcp and a singleton spade?
Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd be happy to hear more about the objection to 3. We were playing Ingberman/reverse, where the first priority for responder's rebid (without this interference) is to disclose a 5+ card spade suit. The alternative, a GF 4 would be reasonable, of course.
Sept. 5
Tom Edwards edited this comment Sept. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm new to reverse Flannery, but I don't see why 1 should be artificial and GF.

Last month, there was an interesting related discussion:
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/is-this-forcing-2-uyqfdvave4/?cj=844619#c844619
Sept. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a strange bidding agreement that is played by many of the good players in my area. After an opening bid in a minor. a major suit response, and a rebid of 2 of the minor, the only forcing bid is a bid in the other minor. That is artificial and game forcing. All other bids like new suits or jumps in new suits are, at the most, invitational.


I thought this agreement, which as I understand, is an aberration from standard bidding, was local, but it may have wider use. I wonder if Craig Z is using similar methods.
Aug. 20
Tom Edwards edited this comment Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is it fair to double and announce “Penalty” even if you think it should be otherwise? :)
Aug. 19
Tom Edwards edited this comment Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, 4 could work well, and at another vulnerability I'd bid that. At this vulnerability, it's a virtual certainty that the opponents will bid again.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ahh. My blind spot. Thanks.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What does “5542 openings” mean?
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I jump to 4 to show a distribution-based 2, rather than a high card based opening.
Note though that my vote is in a distinct minority.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think an original bid of 2 is enough at this vulnerability.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I’m reading a wonderful book, Master of Bridge Psychology. It is a collection of spectacular deals played by Swedish expert, Peter Fredin. He combines very aggressive bidding, with great card reading and play technique. When I held this hand at the local club, I was inspired to channel my inner Fredin and bid as he would. I bid 3NT. On the actual layout 3NT is cold. Unfortunately, I played the hand far less well than Fredin would and was down 2.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it likely he is the one. Many years ago, I played on teams with Bobby and Morris ( a very likeable man and very capable player). He is the founder of Taiwan Semiconductor, the world's largest silicon foundry. According to Wikipedia, he is 87, recently retired as CEO, and plans to play more bridge.
April 4
Tom Edwards edited this comment April 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that's fine so long as responder doesn't strain to double 1NT with every 9-count.
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It certainly sounds like there's been a bidding misunderstanding. If we can dismiss that possibility, then 6 is clear. You couldn't (hardly) have a better hand for slam opposite a 3 splinter.
Nov. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Craig,
Thanks very much for your very cogent recommendations.
Nov. 12, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
.

Bottom Home Top