Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Will Roper
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
XX = 4 with better than
1 = 4 with better than

Other bids: Treat like 1-(1)
Feb. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great example set by Maria and James (and Erik/Morten prior to this). Hopefully, one we can all follow.

One small negative point James. It is a pity you couldn't have been more quippy with the lawyer. Something like:

Lawyer: “I am going to sue you.”

You: “Sure. More importantly, I think I must be lost. It's just that I thought it was Africa where cheetahs roamed freely!”
Feb. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was quite in range for my action I felt….. ;-)
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nope. Our reasoning is that being able to show a slam try quickly is still important and if you want to play in NT in these spots then probably best to right side the likely Hx.
Jan. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3rd suit = bal INV or bad GF
2NT = Any slam try

Allows you to play in a superior 5-2M fit on an auction like

1-1
2-2
2

And define your ST quickly.

Over 2NT our structure isn’t dissimilar to Swedish Jacoby (3C = min etc)
Jan. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As said above it is partnership style. I don’t think many/any would consider this a standard weak 2.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We also play (sometimes double) optional RKC after patterning out. So for us to pull 3N we need to have a hand a bit better than the accept of the optional.

As to what the pulls meant. We simply played optional for our longest suit so:
4 = Bad Hand but felt obliged to pull
4 = V good hand 1/4KC
Etc

We played similar stuff to break over a 4 end signal
Jan. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing standard I would assume expert standard is ST.

My partner and I have discussed this (and a lot of competitive bidding theory). One thing we have adopted in a lot of spots is something we call higher two way checkback. Like most gadgets, it gives up on clubs.

Essentially
4 = Forces 4. Either ; weakish or any slam try
4 = Two places or “choice of strains”

The complexity comes in where we play this. However, we play this in all of the above spots
Dec. 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I get this a lot. I have started “semi-alerting” as a result which feels like the wrong idea.
Nov. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On hand 1 the problem with using 3 = Stop ask or raise are actually more apparent when partner doesn't have a stop.


3-4
4

Is this scrambling for the best non NT game or a ST.

There are several solutions to this. I believe Joe Grue wrote one up several years back.

………….
The second hand is a question of is partner saccing over 4 or bidding to make. If the latter partner would/probably should double 5. When they don't Pass/X are both in the picture for South. What might sway you to the right line is how your values are not working in the context of the bidding.
Nov. 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Firstly I would recommend playing Gazilli the “other way round”. By which I mean:
2 = 6M or 16+
2M = 5M-4+

This helps the weaker gazilli auctions.

As to your questions a lot of it depends on how good your gazilli continuations are particularly regarding 6M hands. Stabbing in the dark -3M = Shapely inv. so 13-15 with 7. 3NT as 3-6 in the majors (H-H style) might be sensible. 1-1N-3N as 6 CoG. 1-1N-3 as an auto SPL.

In general I would avoid the 3NT bids though unless you are a top partnership. Probably too much work for too little payback.
Sept. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It all depends on the partnership agreement. Both good 13-14/18-19 or ART are common in the fields I play in.

However, in a PuP I would try and avoid bidding 1NT with 12-14 OR 18-19 simply because it might be misconstrued. I would pass with the former and bid 2NT with the latter. I would also try and upgrade 19 counts into 20-21 where possible.

I know the actual hand and think that:
a) 1 opener being 3rd in might be pertinent.
b) The 1NT rebid range became clear based on the subsequent bidding….
Aug. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Want to start out by saying bad luck to both US teams, both will come away from this stronger I imagine.

Lot of talk about the 1400 board. Imps swing all the time (especially us juniors). I am actually more curious as to why USA1 was playing Singapore in the first place and would be interested in the rationale behind it?
……….

To the best of my knowledge, USA1 won the RR so got to pick their QF opponent from:

5th = Singapore
6th = Netherlands
7th = Poland
8th = China

This combined with the fact that in the RR (only 14 boards but useful):

USA1 vs Singapore = 8-23IMPs
USA1 vs Netherlands = 34-12IMPs
USA1 vs Poland = 62-31IMPs
USA1 vs China = 54-9IMPs

So USA1 picked the highest ranked team after the RR and the only team out of the 4 which had beaten them. This seems a bit counter-intuitive to my mind. Was it meant as some sort of confidence boost or statement to the field?

It is worth saying that on any different day, USA1 would probably have maintained their 40imp lead after 42 boards and this wouldn't be a topic of conversation. Potentially even an inspired decision. Swings and roundabouts.
Aug. 15, 2018
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, 2018
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, 2018
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, 2018
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, 2018
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, 2018
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, 2018
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, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top