Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Will Roper
1 2 3 4 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 24 25 26 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Am right on the fence. I feel that:

a) by the time I come to a conclusion I will have forced myself into double due to the tempo break

b) I would rather give the auction one positive shove followed by heavy braking rather than a lot of situations where I am going to have to understate throughout.
March 2, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry. I misread the query. I thought we were fully contested.

I play this somewhat differently to most:
INV NT or a bad FSF hand
March 2, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Removed
March 2, 2017
Will Roper edited this comment March 2, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very murky considering it was South who bid 3.
March 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nothing much to add to the 4N confusion. I usually play 2N here as (5)6+
Feb. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Who was East on B3?
Feb. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What would 3 over 2N be?

Michael Byrnes “cuebidding roundabout of doom” comes to mind.
Feb. 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just to make sure I am have understood this right:
(1)-X-(2)-P
(P)-2M

Just shows an opening hand with 5M-4oM?
Feb. 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Only just seen this. I don't feel like double “promises” more as some have suggested. Pass to me is correct because:

a) The majors are the wrong way round. We will never win with vs
b) The vulnerability makes any sacrifice poor especially without shortage
Feb. 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Depends on vulnerability :)
Feb. 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The rest of ones system might depend on vulnerability……So no, I am not joking :)
Feb. 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
-Major. Which major depends on vulnerability:
s if Vuln
s if NV
Feb. 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With certain partners I am allowed to overcall this NV. Whether I want to is uncertain. With others this is about a Queen/King off overcalling strength.
Feb. 12, 2017
Will Roper edited this comment Feb. 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Definitely prefer 4-2 to go into 1. On the border re 5-2.

I like splitting the NT ranges and understand your arguments for TriBal. However, I also like the unbalanced diamond (5552 structure) rather than a nebulous 1. Play Mod Mexican 2 with Alex such that we lose playing in 1N but gain similarly to you in competitive auctions.

What type of 5-4 system?
Feb. 10, 2017
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South has definitely kept the ball in play and North could have done a lot more:

1 is good,
2 is borderline,
3 is poor (a 3 SPL jumps out at me as automatic)
Pass is just making a bad situation worse
Feb. 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I answered NF, NF in all 3. I understand that 2 might be passed and therefore some people think that these bids are F1/FG. However, this is quite an easy auction to set up a force (3) and 2 in itself is a hugely descriptive, yet wide ranging bid. Thus invitational hands should not be neglected imo.

There are some mildly artificial solutions to this problem also.
Feb. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Spot on John.
Feb. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So in standard 2/1 it goes 1-3 and you are in the same spot. Ftr 3 should probably be NF in both auctions.

One of my partnerships play extremely light openings and therefore what we consider GF is around 14+. The disadvantage of this is either:

a) a very wide invite range in certain situations (9-13ish)
b) having to treat certain 14-17 openers as better than standard

Neither is optimal and both cause issues. That is the drawback of opening light. Ways to combat this:

a) Aggressive Strong Club obviously. Thus 14/15+hands open 1.
b) Relays can help too. The dutch approach uses a 2 Invitational waiting bid.

Lastly I would note that the diamond hand is borderline for me. I think IJS should promise very self sufficient suit quality.
Feb. 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Mike,

2M meaning:
The only difference is whether you are “allowed” to bid 4M over 2M. If 3M is a cue ask, then you should never bid 4M over 2M or at least that is my understanding of it.

What should 3M be:
Hx is probably slightly better as if you are going to jump a level, you should be showing something.

Another v possible use is to play 3M as a minimal hand offering choice of games.e.g Bal 11-14 with 3M.
Pro: Lack of information to opponents, Ability to play in 3N, Still some space to evaluate slams.
Con: Lose some information in slam auctions.

1M-2m-2new-4m:
This for us currently is simply a solid minor.
If it went something like:
1-2
2-2
3-?

3 for us here would be a slam try with strength in our first bid suit. Doesn't have to be solid, but it does imply a source of tricks opposite a likely singleton.
Feb. 3, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a director I would try and poll people before I made a certainty ruling….

I would also note that for such a complete introduction, I was curious as to whether N/E had anything to add to this. We had a hand recently where it went: (P)-P-(P)-1-(1)-2-(4). Now the board went under the screen for several minutes and came back with P-(P). Who do you think has been thinking? The answer is that one player was considering raising to 5.

Another thing that would be useful is the pairs style. Some pairs like to go for 32HCP slams. Others have the agreement that they only accept Quant bids on maximums, others on non minimums. Of course, all of this is theoretical and the director should ask why the player bid 4N.

Without this I cannot rule as a TD. As a player, I am in line with MR's thoughts on ethics. The 4N bid looks induced by the 3N bid and therefore nothing good can come of it, be it a logical alternative or not.
Feb. 3, 2017
1 2 3 4 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 24 25 26 27
.

Bottom Home Top