Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Brian Davies
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Is leading the 8 spot from J8xx or 108xx suggested widely”

No, I would expect that most would suggest finding another suit to lead.

If the auction and a glance at your hand suggest that you really must lead the suit, then it would be more usual to lead a low card playing attitude leads and holding an honour.

Occasionally you listen to the auction, look at your hand and conclude that you want to lead the suit and don't want partner to return the suit. Leading the 8 might achieve this result.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At club level in England, you still found plenty of strong Acol-two bids, many more penalty doubles (of weak-twos, other pre-empts, low-level bids), Fishbein, Hackett, Gerber etc.

2-over-1 promised 8+ HCPs and there were many more non-forcing sequences (1S, 2C, 2D For example).

The more exotic types played systems like the Nottingham Club.
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
By a passed hand Ian?
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I note that I am sitting in the west seat. I believe that all of the actions listed would be Bids Out Of Turn.
Oct. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe that “Checkback” is usually used to refer to a 2 shape inquiry. “Crowhurst” is the term for a 2 inquiry into both shape and strength.

Crowhurst would not open 1NT on a balanced hand with a small doubleton and therefore his No Trump range was 12-16 and needed an inquiry to identify the strength as well as the shape.

The “Crowhurst” inquiry can be used for stronger ranges - e,g a pair playing a mini NT (10-12) might choose to have a 13-17 range 1NT rebid and use “Crowhurst”. We play a weak NT but still choose to make the 1NT rebid 15-18 and use “Crowhurst”.
Sept. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also 40A1(a): Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players.
Sept. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is non-leaping Michael's?
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You also need agreements about actions in 4th seat and 6th seat. E.g. if (2D), 2NT is natural, what is (2D), P, (2H), P, (P), 2NT? Is it still natural? Or unusual? Or …?

What is the meaning of (2D), P, (2H), Dbl? Or (2D), P, (2H), 2S?

As someone who plays the multi, I find that opponents have usually discussed the meaning of 2nd seat actions, but get muddled over these type of 4th and 6th seat auctions.
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3NT is 100% forcing after the positive response in my world.
Sept. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IG: “If you can't simply and accurately describe your methods then change them.”

This is a long discussion with many unhelpful comments. But this has to be the most daft.

I am sympathetic to the goal of properly disclosing your methods, but this should not necessitate changing methods. Most of us upgrade and downgrade based on many criteria and usually it is a combination of criteria that allow us to make our best judgement. Our valuation method will be difficult (if not impossible) to fully describe - let alone quantify in some fractional division of the Milton Work count.

The convention card can state the range together with a comment “upgrades and downgrades are possible”. This has fully satisfied the disclosure obligation in my opinion.
Aug. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I expect an announcement if “12-14” to be a three point range centred on 13 HCPs. If players upgrade and downgrade symmetrically, I accept that this is normal bridge. You might add a comment such as “upgrades and downgrades possible” as a note to the convention card, but I doubt that this adds much information to any player experienced enough to be able to read a convention card. Describing the range as 11+ to 15- would be misleading.

Unfortunately, I find that most players do not upgrade and downgrade symmetrically. There are two possibilities: (1) they upgrade very frequently and almost never downgrade. The simple fact is that the range is in reality weaker than announced. I find that strong-no-trumpers often fall into this trap (as Frances says, “weak NT is a completely different animal”). Very often a more honest announcement for a strong NT would be 14+ to 16+ rather than 15-17.

The second possibility is more often found among weak-no-trumpers. They tend to upgrade nice 11's into the range and downgrade bad 15's into the range. They never seem to downgrade bad 12's out of the range or upgrade good 14's out of the range. The range is centred on 13, but is wider, in reality, than the announced range. A more honest announcement would be 11+ to 15-.
Aug. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I disagree with the unnecesary descriptors added to objectives choices”.

This.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do the pair have an agreement (explicit or implicit) to do this?
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did partner hesitate? Or opponent?
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You never avoid splintering with an ace?
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would not open 2C. I prefer 1S or an appropriate four-level bid.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with this.

In the context of our weak NT system this double shows a strong NT hand.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's a pity. We might have been a great partnership! :)
Aug. 8
Brian Davies edited this comment Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But the laws provide for inferential understandings. Law 40.A.1.(a) explicitly state that partnership understandings may be arrived at implicitly through mutual experience or awareness.
Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“the EBU rule is that, unless you KNOW that partner's bid does not carry an alertable meaning, you MUST alert it.”

This is correct. But this is not an onerous requirement. As I tried to illustrate in the earlier post, your knowledge of the meaning of partner's bid might be agreed explicitly or through other indirect means, but competent players usually know know what partner's bid means (they also try to avoid making ambiguous bids without discussion).

It will be a rare auction where partner makes a bid and you do not know the intention of the bid, but in this case the EBU regulations (Properly in my opinion) require an alert.
Aug. 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
.

Bottom Home Top