Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Brian Davies
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wtp 1NT opening for me.
Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whilst we don't have a concept of “pre-alerting” in the UK, this is in effect achieved by exchanging convention cards which should include prominently on page 1 any issues that the opponent's need to prepare for (The Blue Book requires disclosure of “Matters to which special attention should be drawn”).

But this tournament is played under regulations that do not require a pre-alert and do not allow for the exchange of convention cards ahead of play. It would seem that there is a significant gap that is left.

I am not even clear whether competitors are sitting in the same room as each other.
Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was there a convention card? Was it clearly marked on the convention card?
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This form of multi is common in the UK.
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. Convention refers to a set of bids (this includes responses and follow-ups) or a set of defensive signals (so when you play High-Low both cards are conventional).
Feb. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, “Convention” relates to set (sometimes a set with one member) of calls or or defensive signals.

E.g. “Journalist Leads” refers to a set of leads, not a specific card.
Feb. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You mentioned that they were juniors, so I guess that having the sixth card AND an honour makes it a particularly sound multi 2D :)

This is not to be recommended for anyone over 25.

The second double says: “I've still got the hand that I had when I made the first double” and “I'm prepared to play 4” if hearts is your suit.
Feb. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“if you count an insufficient 6 that got corrected to 7

Are you wanting to poll for a ruling?
Feb. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What is your minimum for a non-vulerbale Landy bid? … In 4th seat, at MPs?
Jan. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well yes, read his comment up-thread.
Jan. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play transfer advances. Here I bid 2, showing hearts, then we would support spades at the next turn.

Transfer advances mean that you don't need to choose between a forcing and non-forcing change of suit.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If this would be a normal weak two for this partnership, then switching to a Multi / Lucas Twos would be sensible.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a key piece of information missing. What is the usual partnership style for weak twos? Will this hand fall within partner's range of expectation?

If partner is expecting a sound six-card suit with two of the three top honours in the 6-10 range, then this is pushing it a bit!
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can play it either way round - I do play both penalty and take-out with different partners. But I think that take-out has become the normal method.
Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East remained silent throughout?!
Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with this.

How do we show spades in this auction? Those doubling are clearly not intending the double as showing spades. Those bidding 3 are clearly intending the bid as artificial. In my world the 3 bid is natural (swap the diamond and spade holdings in the OP hand).
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael: you would like a bit more definition for your systrm notes. Don't you think that your opponents might be entitled to that additiobal definition?
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Frances,

I don't have any problem with your first two examples - which show additional strength (and will be revealed by subsequent bidding).

I disagree that most will make a take-out double holding a weak-no-trump type hand and three cards in opener's suit. In my experience, this is a minority treatment at best and a treatment that should be disclosed in an ideal world. (It's not great bridge either, in my opinion, but that isn't the point). Partnerships who make these off-shape take-out doubles are aware of their partnership tendencies, but opponents do not receive the benefit of disclosure.

Maybe my grievance is due to my misplaying a recent hand because I played the doubler for shortage. But I feel that the current regulation doesn't force adequate disclosure here.

For what It's worth, I think that it is good that we have a definition and most of the definition is good. I can't remember the previous wording and maybe that was not not perfect either.
Dec. 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In England, the Blue Book defines take-out doubles:

“A take-out double suggests that the doubler wishes to compete and invites partner to describe his hand. Partner is expected to bid, though a pass may be made on a hand very suitable for defence in the context of the level of the bid doubled and what he can be expected to hold for his actions (if any) to date.”

Previous versions referred to shortage in the suit doubled and preparedness to play in other suits but these references have (wrongly in my opinion) been removed.
Dec. 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yep, if you want to open it 2 and you have no partnership agreement to open 2 with extreme distribution, then open it 2. You will now have an implicit partnership agreement and might have a problem next time you are dealt a 6610 hand and choose to open 2. You might not have this problem very soon!
Dec. 21, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top