Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Bob Okker
1 2 3 4 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Right. So why 4 and not 4?
April 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Just be careful what book you use – try to avoid the ones that are written to what the author thinks 2/1 should be, rather than what it actually is.”

And it actually is . . . what exactly?
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've never seen anyone who claims to be playing SAYC, play SAYC.
Feb. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So it's worth 12-14?
Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A 1z rebid, in Standard, is not forcing.

The upper range is open to agreement, but those you've listed are a bit low (in my opinion).

More like an upper range of—up to a “bad” 18. Otherwise rebid a non-forcing 2NT, or jump-shift to 2z.

With the “perfect” 17 I would also jump-shift. e.g. 1 - 1 - ?
With AKJx - xx - x - AKQTxx Surely this is worth a jump-shift.
Jan. 26
Bob Okker edited this comment Jan. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also, the part about a reverse being a non-jump.

So that:
1 - 1 - 2 is a reverse, and

1 - 1 - 2 is a jump-shift.
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, Art, a fundamental disagreement. :)

I believe a simple poll asking the forcing nature of a reverse (with the caveat that responder was a passed hand) would result in an overwhelming majority agreeing that it is still forcing.
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, the “missing factor” is that responder never responded and could very possibly be the proud owner of a zero count.

Even if responder were a passed hand, if he intitially responded (for simplicity let's show an auction with no interference), then a reverse is still 100% absolutely forcing.
e.g.:
P - (P) - 1 - (P)
1 - (P) - 2 - (P)
??
This is still forcing. The passed hand nature of responder's hand is immaterial. While it “can be” passed, it does not change the forcing nature of opener's reverse.
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How many spades is 1?
Dec. 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing reverse-by-opener as a game-force is what you prefer to play . . . or what you believe to be “standard”?
Nov. 20, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Something like:

K AQJ97 A85 KJ42

Non-forcing. Importantly, since 2 was not forcing, I find it difficult to fathom how 3 can be forcing. But a good hand nevertheless.
Nov. 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
TeeHee @ Cornelia.

Yes, my partner bids 2. No, we do not “miss our spade fit.” I next bid my spades and–guess what?–show spades, all in the same bid. It's not artificial, my partner knows they are real. If partner has spades too–she tells me by raising.

You know this.
Nov. 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I have never seen any reason to bypass 4 spades at the 1 level.”

Your partner opens 1. You have:

KJT7 A3 A KQJ963

If I respond 1, I'm begging my partner to rebid 2. True, I can “force game” with 3. And still, I haven't even shown half my cards! I'm not sure at what level we'll find our fit–the 5 level?

I can't imagine responding 1 here.
Nov. 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another Bridge World Death Hand?

Six of my minor.
Good three card support for partner's major.
Extras.

That might be consistent with this bidding.
Oct. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
13 cards helps.
Oct. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We need more options!

* I don't know - 5 (my choice)
* I don't know - 5
Oct. 14, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Other.

I play parts of it. Not because I set out to do so, but because select portions of my methods match BWS. As Ed mentions above, “The system is ideal for use by impromptu or casual partnerships and as a basis for discussion by those who wish to formulate their own system.”

To play every part of BWS would be an impressive match in thinking. For example, I recently noticed that BWS plays Texas through 4. Personally, I prefer to play Texas only through 3, so I do. A conscious decision to break with BWS simply because I prefer it.

As with pretty much any 2/1 system, BWS offers plenty of opportunities to swap out the prescribed treatment for your own.
Sept. 27, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps an apology, a heartfelt apology, is in order the next time you run into this lady? Surely you will remember her after reading the responses to your post.

The fact that she also owes you an apology is immaterial.
Sept. 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But is 3 unequivocally forcing?
July 6, 2019
1 2 3 4 5
.

Bottom Home Top