Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Will Roper
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 22 23 24 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I was playing Weak NT we put all weak sign-offs through 2. It isn't hard to make 2-2x-2NT = and put hands out in 3 or 2 depending on Stayman type.

These days my structure is a bit simpler: 2 = or range ask, 2NT = Puppet, 3m = .
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Due to my approach and the fact that some players I play frequently against are simply doubling to get me to run, I prefer the approach of reasons to play in 3NT rather than reasons to run. Playing teams there is clearly even more upside to sticking. I would guess sticking would need to be right around 33% or more to show a profit.

It also seems to me that this is an exercise in judgement and therefore as we approach the line it will get blurry. Thus this difference isn't a big deal either way.
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This seems to missing out on the best advantage of Puppet*

Imagining 3 (standard) as our Puppet bid.

1NT-3
3-3M

3 = No 5cM
3M = 4oM

This is really useful for hands that just want to play 3NT/4M and don't want to give the Opps help wrt declarer's hand which is the big drawback of Stayman. I personally use 2NT as the Puppet bid but that is due to how + hands fit into my methods

*This is all only valid under the assumption you play regular stayman. If you also play 1NT-2 = Puppet or the even more unusual variant I have seen where 1NT-2 = then this post isn't relevant.
July 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would argue that this isn't a spot in which you are going to miss a lot of slams with reasonable methods. Missing thin games though is crucial. The added advantages of Kits approach is you get to play in 2NT which is useful at MP opposite some of these soft long minor hands.

Following on, I think playing 2 = INV minor that the sequence:

2-2NT
3m = INV looking for Hx etc

Thus if this is your preferred style then I think Kits layout is superior.
July 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So my views on this are fairly (probably far too) comprehensive.

I am not a huge fan of stopper variants which Kit and others have advised above. This is not because they don’t work (they do), but because of the memory load. If RHO doubles 3NT for penalties (or lead a major etc) we need a completely different set of agreements for what are rare situations.

Looking at Redouble as Certainty vs Redouble as Doubt:

If you define 3 types (+ psyching) of hand either player can hold:
1. Certainty (thinks we are making unless partner psyched)
2. Middling (on the fence as to whether we are making)
3. Doubt (thinks we are not making unless partner has a monster)
4. We psyched or are never sticking 3NT for some reason

Assumption: Middling opposite Doubt or worse should run from 3NTx. Anything better should stick 3NT

If you run through the combinations what you will find is:

Redouble as Certainty:
Pro: Playing in 3NTxx when both hands are Certain.
Con: We are forced to run with middling opposite middling. See Joel's comment above.

Redouble as Doubt:
Pro: Solves the Con of Redouble as Certainty
Con 1: Forces us to play 3NTx when we are both certain (and want to play 3NTxx)
Con 2: Forces us to play 3NTxx when we are Middling opposite Middling (want to play 3NTx).

This is probably slightly better than Redouble as Certainty from a theoretical viewpoint.

………………

The solution which I play is a mix of the two:

In Direct seat: XX = Certainty
In Pass-out seat: XX = Doubt

This isn’t perfect (doesn’t solve Con 2) but it does solve Con 1 from both alternatives.
July 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I DBLed. Partner had 5-4 so we reached the wrong game. 4 is the big winner.

As said this came up two years ago I thought at the time my usual bridge is hard.

However, it has led me to wonder how useful 4 is here as natural NF. 4 = Two places would be a pretty nifty agreement to have here (and fits with some other agreements I have). Downside clearly is there no way of playing in partscore.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice logic and Norman S agrees with you fwiw. The problem with this logic in reality was most tables were pre-empting 3 and we have an easy 9-10 tricks in 3NT.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nope although opps were juniors :-)

Nor is this a poll for a ruling as most of mine seem to be these days. This was my hand and came up two years ago.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Personally, the most important things to me about this spot are 2M = Natural and 3M = SPL with both minors.

Fitting that around a Rubensohl structure gives you:

DBL = Values
2/2M = Natural; NF
2NT =
3 =
3 = Stop ask
3M = SPL with at least 5-4 minors
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2NT = Ask
3 =
3 =

For me personally
May 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On hand 2 you are ofc correct if you want to score 11 tricks…. :-)
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
fixed thanks
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Showing a 5-3 fit seems not too clever.

I use DBL here as T/O but I do know an expert pair who play it as exactly 2. I imagine their method has some excellent upsides at MP.
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Think both are rulings for me but not clear-cut.

Hand 1: This hand should have bid at multiple points in this auction. I assume they got out as they claimed 4 was “pick a major partner”. I.e they deliberately used a bid to cover partner when they actually had a more clearcut bid. It looks like fielding to me. Another question is why didn't they bid over the T/O double?

Hand 2: I think North meant his bid as a mixed raise? Muddying the waters on this hand makes no sense given the vulnerability and the weakness of your hand.
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the hands. Very cool.

On the second hand:

An alternative line which might be better is to draw trumps. Now when East shows up with 3 we know he has 4315 or 4306. Cash A and the whole hand is revealed. Now AKQ (throwing a diamond) and play a up. Now we can double endplay East regardless of his spade cards.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We are on a guess for the double squeeze as far as I can see. If LHO has 4 we cannot make now so RHO has 42(43) or (42)(52). We essentially need to guess which minor East has length in and then lead the shorter one. If we lead the longer one then I don't think? the double squeeze operates.

I don't know what clues or inferences can be taken to figure this one out. My best guess is that if RHO was 42(52) they would have thrown from the 5 card suit first.

Thus my line is: , , .

Sidenote: I would have played it differently as West's discard on the 3rd is probably v helpful.
March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I initially looked at this and thought that this was good logic. 2 queries have come to mind though:

1) Why can't be 6142/6043 round the table?
2) Can partner make a FJ on 5-3?
March 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great result. Well done!
March 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Zimmermann - Schwartz
Gupta - Fireman
Cayne - Verbeek
Lall - Seligman

Thanks in advance :-)
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At MP: 4
At Teams: 5 or 6
March 3
Will Roper edited this comment March 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 22 23 24 25
.

Bottom Home Top