Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Will Roper
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Both the example hands given would be opening hands for a lot of people. Myself included.

@Peg: My view on it is a pure T/O is 4144 etc. Offensive values might include some off-shape hands. Axxxx, x, Axxxx, xx for example where you don't want to bid 4 and go for a random penalty when 4 drifted 1 off.
Jan. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
6 is a push regardless. However, it is much easier to bid if East opens…..
Dec. 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play system here so am not the person to ask. Would take 4 as SPL self agreeing diamonds without agreement.
Dec. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Dennis,

I recall playing against you in London a couple of years ago (playing with Mini and Copey?) as you were somewhat bemused to find Flannery on this side of the Atlantic. Any plans to return to the UK?

What do you think juniors who have been around for a while need to do in order to make the successful transition to the top level of the game?

Finally, what is your favourite/most amusing story from your junior days?

Thanks for taking the time out to answer our questions. It is much appreciated!
Dec. 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is this some sort of obscure poll to find out how many English bridge immigrants are on an American website?
Dec. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Although it doesn't change my decision it might be worth citing your accepting ranges Frances. For example, my game jumping is quite light so I always play an invite-accept as a super max. I.e won't be an average 16 count.
Dec. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can envisage a lot of minimal non-suitable hands where 3NT is easy for 9+ tricks. At MP I might consider inviting but I try to avoid it at teams.

This hand is just super suitable for game.
Dec. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Add 1 more to the guilty suspects
Dec. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well done Abi and good luck!
Dec. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a matter of agreement, hence the division. I have seen lots of IMPs fly around on this.

My personal approach to this in a pick-up partnership is to avoid bidding 4 if I have any serious slam intention.

My partnership agreements on this auction of relevance are as follows:
1-2
2-3
4-4

3 = 5-5. Could be less if conc values but mostly bid 2N with 5-4/6-4
4 = Strong slam-try in and little/no preference. With any preference would bid 3.

Both of these mean 4 for me is sensible as a cue.
Nov. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some thoughts, one or two of which may even be serious:

1) You shouldn't overcompete for partscores. Image of MGB telling Sasha that “These guys don't seem to make many contracts, its time for the red card.”

2) IJS might solve some of these issues. 1-2 is INV then this auction makes some sense as weak. In poker terminology when you bid 1-(P)-1 with 6+; weak/GF they would call this a polarised range which makes subsequent actions much easier (imagine LHO now bids 2 back to you).

3) The second hand I would want to double but then what is partner meant to do with 4-3? This is the trap you put yourself in when you don't Support Double or (as Paul alludes to above) don't double on minimal but suitable balanced hands with 4-3.

4) If I double then I am not ending up in a 4-1 fit. Surely you will correct 2 to 3 which should be 7cards+.

5) Can your partner support via a 2 bid with 3 and suitable hands?

6) In the words of a former partner:

“Support doubles - A and B play them, our coach seems to have no problem, its excellent LAW wise, the number of times it would be useful in the part score battle.”

He might have had a point, crazy as that sounds.
Nov. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not a bridge lawyer or someone who likes digging within the laws. However, from the white book 2017:

Law 8 - End of Round
1. In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players.

My interpretation: For a teams game, the round ends when you sit down to play the next set.

LAW 63 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE
A revoke becomes established:
4. when agreement is established (as per Law 69A) to an opponent’s claim or concession; the offending side having raised no objection to it before the end of the round, or before making a call on a subsequent board.

My interpretation: This is somewhat poorly worded but the intent seems clear. If there is an accepted claim then the revoke can become established before the end of the round.

Thus I think the current/new rules do cover this. Even without this I definitely would rule it back to making.
Nov. 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It depends heavily on the partnership I am/was playing in. In no order of preference:

2 = Double negative
2N =

2 = To play opposite 20-21bal
2N = 3way bid (weak , weak minors, strong 55mm)

2 = Spades
2N =

2 = Spades
2N = Minors

2 = Spades
2N = Two suited
Nov. 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have played all of the above and some others as well.

Personally, my preference is to play shortage (or some variant) in these positions. I also dislike the 3/3N flip for several reasons:

1) I struggle to remember it
2) It is hard to exploit (e.g v suitable hands can pass NS 3N)
3) Additional system is needed for when serious isn't used (do we flip em back, do we play something else).
4) It has little advantage over standard and some deficits. It definitely is not a win-win convention.
Nov. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your priority should be shortage showing in my view. If I was playing the scheme I would follow something similar to Martens proposal of Stayman+Transfers.
Nov. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am in the X=T/O of camp too. X=Balanced is a very popular defence to M2 known as Dixon here in the UK. I think people like it as:

a) It fits with 1N-(2*)-X = Values
b) (2*)-X-(2M)-? = You can now treat this like 1N-(2M)-?.
c) Simplicity

From my experience though, it is far too fiddly for my liking hence the X=T/O route. This also fits in with the rest of my X of ART bids style which is nice.
Nov. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lot of probables, but I am tired.
Nov. 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As Michael I would bid 4 as 4 should be to play probably (or stronger/weaker) I would then make some sort of move over it as necessary.

On your auction I would bid 5 probably.
Nov. 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South should open
North should potentially open more than 1 (2/3/4)
North should bid more than 2
South should definitely bid on

Oh and what is 2 in 4th. If intermediate then isn't 2 here somewhat stronger thus, even more of a reason for South to bid on.

Seems like both N/S are equally to blame
Nov. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think shape showing has more merit than controls but to each their own.

When I was playing this style last year with someone who liked it he preferred 2 as the positive as this allowed for a more comprehensive Kokish style.

2-2 = Positive:

2 = Bal or
2N =
3 =
3+ = minors or 4441 shapes

The purpose was that partner can complete the minor transfer and then we can continue to show shape. E.g 4M-5m.

Over
2-2:
2 = bal GF or nat (there were followups)
2N = NF
3 = 4-5
Others = nat

Essentially if you are going down this route you should try and get the most out of your 2/2 bids in terms of making up for lost time. Thus for me, I would pack all the good hands into 2 since they are the slam-interested ones.
Nov. 8, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top