Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Will Roper
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was playing 2/1 but there is no implications or difference from any system Steve. Moreover this was with a very highly regarded player with whom my agreements stretched to:
2/1: Strong NT 5CM
Reverse Attitude, Standard Count
Multi Landy with a Woolsey Double
Common sense
Nov. 6, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not really. IMPs possibly but Pairs you need to get into the auction early of you never will.

Oct. 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Using standard methods it is a bit touch and go… I don't like leaping to 4 when partner has clubs and not much extra. Nor do I like any of my other options. I would probably double which shows values/spades.

Preferably 1 for me is 14+HCP unbalanced so here I think 3NT is my call.
Oct. 18, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Again talking about which hands do what :) My solution if I recall was:
3RST with 6+M and mild slam try
4RST with 6+M and a weak hand/strong slam try hand

No need then for the Retransfer
Oct. 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know the hand and our auction was rather different…… Our opponent chose the 4 albeit against 2.
Oct. 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This isn't home-brew Michael. I play something similar with one of my partners after 1M-2 sans any collaboration with Mr Morrision :) A lot of experts including Fantunes for example play switches/transfers after 1M-2 as well.

A bidding problem is meant to say we are here, what would you do now on your evaluation of the hand/your previous bids and partners bids. If you want partners/your alternatives at some stage of the auction then you ask.

At the end of the day if you are not happy with the way the problem was presented then you don't need to comment or answer on it…..No?
Oct. 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had a hand like this yesterday. I gambled on 6 coming in if partner held a major first round control. Even when the contract went off the distribution meant 5M was cold the other way. Here I think we have too much for Pass and not enough for Double. We have a nice diamond side suit that should be able to produce tricks. If we can get 9/10 tricks in the minor suits then it is simply a case of whether partner has major suit control. I think they would have doubled with a heart honour so its more likely they have the spade stopped. If its something like Kx,x,Qxx,AKQJxxx then its unfortunate.
Sept. 29, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Usually will be 5+m. I play Quant style with a lot of semi-balanced mild hands. 5NT is normally either pick a suit slam or bid 7 if I rebid 6NT. So with 4m I have 5NT/4m depending on suitability.

Worth noting that I play FG transfers so we are talking about the sequence 2NT-3R-3S/3NT denying 3M.
Sept. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1453 still ends up in 2NT/3 though?

I imagine that the 2 bid does allow for some Lead direction as does a 2 interference/double. They can now compete more accurately over 2M.

3-3 fits still your style eh ;)
Sept. 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Simple Q Chris:
What are the Pro's & Con's (if you don't know the latter then hypothesis) of this method compared to standard & standard Gazilli in simple bullet point terms. I am afraid I have only skimmed through what seems like a nice article as I have just started my 4 years of drinking……I mean learning. I.e why should I take this up :)
Sept. 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed. If I was going to take up this method (I have been considering something similar), then transfers are the way to go. Far more uniformity for 1M - 1NT rather than 1H-1NT, 1S -1NT. Add in Kaplan Inversion if that to your taste and you have a nice system.
Sept. 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner can easily have a hand which 6/7m is cold. 4/4 seem obvious with 4 being slightly better since you can ruff the good if partner has something like Axx,xx,Ax,AKQxxx
Sept. 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Only a club evening but recently played 26 boards and got just over 70%…..Came second…..
Sept. 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So dummy has :) I rectify my statement to declarer cannot have KQ9

However this doesn't affect the validity of declarer running some diamonds first before hearts.

If declarer had KQ10 and LHO ditched their spades on the the diamonds we wouldn't care. 2 (Q & 10), 6 & 1 = 9
Sept. 8, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes this could be the case. But with this hand declarer could
a) play the Q trying to lure us into ducking instead of blatantly playing the K

b) They need exactly KQx in hearts for this line to make sense. If they held KQ10 then they could draw diamonds and play KH endplaying us immediately. Even with this hand they would probably play several diamonds early. Imagine if we had led from: Q10xx,A,xxxx,QJxx. Now we would be endplayed automatically on the play of the heart. However if they play the heart immediately they let us off scot free.
Sept. 8, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I ducked also on the additional possibility declarer has something like:
0454 or 1444 with a diamond holding such as AQJx or AKJ10 and needs to repeatedly finesse partner's diamonds (10 could be a crucial entry). Unless declarer has something ridiculous like void spade and 7 solid diamonds then it is unlikely that ducking one round will give the contract. If declarer then plays the Q I am back into the tank :)
Sept. 8, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure (I am halfway through rewriting the system file and shortening it for you/everyone btw).

Of the opening bids in Fantunes 1 is the strongest in competition in my eyes. 2 though is probably the weakest of the 2 level openings so divesting the shape into various bids will be good.

In my eyes it is a simple question of which problem is greater:
-Being able to open trashy two level openings (not really important as gd players can defend the Multi)
-More accurate competition over the 1 opening (although note it won't be as accurate as say Fantunes as partner will still assume you to have the balanced weak NT) & more preemptive intermediate 2m openings.

The other advantage which people don't really consider but I experienced a lot when I played artificial minors is leads. Say you open 1 and the opps preempt 3 and thats where it rests. Partner now assumed you had diamonds a lot of the time and makes a really poor lead compared to the one which they would have chosen were you balanced.

On that note have you considered a wider/higher range i.e 10-14 or 11-14 as with 14-15 unbalanced you still won't necessarily compete in these auctions when you want to in order to define your hand?

2 doubled is a nice touch! :)
Sept. 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
presumably 2 = 6+ unless 5 4

Should work nicely. Is it worth getting rid of the trash multi for it….. I don't know

Only thing to worry about is hands worry about is when it goes 1 - 1M - 2 - AP or competition in standard whilst here you open 2 and partner plays a misfitting 2 assuming you will normally have 6+……its reasonably rare though (I think the odds say you will hit a 5-2 or better diamond fit over 60% of the time)

I don't think you lose much definition from the 2 bid by adding essentially a intermediate 2 to it so I would keep it as is above if you decide to add it.

As an interesting sidenote, a friend of mine developed a system recently which involved a balanced 1 opening. I.E 1 = 12-13 or 17-19, 1 = 14-16 for the balanced hands. 1NT/2/2!/D catered for the hands with diamonds unbalanced. Don't know if this helps your thinking.
Sept. 6, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This was a partnership only in its 5th outing odd in 8 months :) With my regular partner it would have started the equivalent hands (we play a weak NT & Forcing 1) would go slightly differently - 1 - (1) - X - (2) - 2 - (3)

Here X shows an invite with at most 1 4CM and the 2 bid is natural and constructive. We now have defined our hand a lot better and can pass knowing partner can penalise should they wish.

The auction here is far better defined as we have shown invite/GF hands and we can now pass and let partner judge the situation.

The auction we had didn't define my hand as well. For the same amount of space I could be Competitive/Invitational/GF for all partner knows. Whilst I fit into the competitive category I am top end and a pass would misrepresent my values. At teams its fine. At pairs its suicide.
Sept. 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are quite right Frances in that they do not specify the meaning of first round of the auction.

Looking at the outdated laws from 2007 all I can find is these definitions:
Auction — The process of determining the contract by means of
successive calls. It begins when the first call is made.
Call — Any bid, double, redouble or pass.

The key word is call and not bid. I.e the auction starts with the first call. I assume although cannot be certain that the EBU defines that the auction starts with the first bid.

This has affected me in the past hence the above comment:
Playing in a WBF cat 3 event I was advised by an opposing player (then the director) that 4NT was alertable in the sequence. p-p-1S-X-4S-4NT. Subsequent to the event I asked Barrie Partridge who is an EBU director & Chief TD on Bridge Club Live (which obeys WBF laws) for clarification and he gave the one I gave above.

Regards,

Will
Sept. 5, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top