Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Bob Okker
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 with 5+.
If partner has a major, she bids it. If I have support for the major, I support.
Jan. 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No.
If partner bids 2NT I'll show delayed support for s. Partner should be able to figure out my 4243 (or possibly 4144) shape.

Our methods specifically deny a 5th in this auction, with 2 not promising extras.
Jan. 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tootsie Pop!
Jan. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If playing “natural responding methods,” with the requirement that a positive suit response includes say, 2 of the top 3 honors, then 2 is understandable.

I agree that s are the agreed suit. With s, a simple 3 rebid would seem to be the simplest way to convey that message.

The question is, with s as trump, and opposite a void, do we show one keycard with 5? Or, with our undisclosed length and the void, do we dare try something else?

Does 6 convey that message?
Oct. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South failed to bid KeyCard = Mistake
North bid KeyCard and did not follow thru with 5NT = Mistake

East and West = No Mistakes
Aug. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's where I was going, yes . . . and the reason for this poll.

Our auction proceeded 1 - 1 - 1 - 2 (artificial GF), then 3NT by opener. Not Fast-Arrival but showing “extras” by opener. Unsure of how to proceed, I jumped to 6, and we languished in a small slam. It was only afterwards that 4NT (vanilla Blackwood) dawned on me. Thanks!
July 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, Phillip.
I edited the OP to reflect that jump-shifts are weak while you were writing this.
July 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ellis, so you are saying:
1) 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 3NT shows 18-19.
2) 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 2NT shows a minimum. Presumably 12-14.

What about:
3) 1 - 1 - 2NT? How does this differ from no.1 above?
4) How do we address the unbalanced “gap”? The 15-17 range?
July 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does 2 indicate extras?

If not, why not?
July 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In other words, almost unanimous.
June 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Other.

Either a 3 level splinter (invitational) or a 5 level splinter.
June 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I assumed by the OP that you were referring to a 4 level bid of a minor over 3 level preempts (or weak, preemptive 3 level raises). If so, then forcing.

Some of the responses seem to conflate “non-leaping” with regular Michaels.
June 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Except when your partner is GIB, who plays it as a weak and preemptive. :)

I've tried to convince him otherwise, but he refuses to listen!
June 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What then is 2?
June 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you have no luck here you might check with Frank Stewart. He co-wrote Sheinwold's articles for many years.
June 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or the Tom Jones 2NT — It's Not Unusual!
May 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You're in the general neighborhood, Brad. It was this:

AJ8
KQT9742
-
A72
May 27, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“2 is . . . not even forcing.”

Huh?

Partner responded 1. 2 would be a jump-shift.

Can he pass? Of course. But that does not change the forcing nature of the bid.
May 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is 4 even forcing?
If not, should forcing bids be routed through 3?
Feb. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course. But let's assume your agreement, sparse as it is, is simply “no leb.”
Jan. 20, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top