Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Brian Davies
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Matt, even the EBU rule needs some subjective judgement - at what point has the bidding card been “removed from the bidding box”? This question did lead to a disputed ruling at a County event last year.

But yes, I prefer the EBU regulation. The EBU Blue Book describes the regulation as “based on recommendations by the WBF”.
Oct. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Similar in England.
Oct. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At least you have access to dummy. The usual problem with these very strong hands is that you can't reach dummy.

We had a 31-point hand a few years back at our local club:
AK3 AK5 AKQJ AK10 opposite J652 1042 53 9643. 6NT has to go two off on almost all leads.

We were unlucky enough to be defending against the novice pair who had a misunderstanding and passed-out 2NT!
Oct. 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm surprised at the zero match points. Did no one go off in 3NT?
Oct. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just checking that pass is not a Logical Alternative.

Answer seems conclusive! :)
Oct. 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is interesting that I, an average to mediocre club player in the UK, play a system that is too advanced for the great minds at Orlando to cope with except by consulting their notes.
Sept. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An Acol sequence:
Pass, 1; 2, 4; 4, 6
Sept. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure why a natural over-call should have a maximum of 16?

How do you play pass, then double of the expected 2 when it comes back to you?
Aug. 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Why does this rate an article when the Seniors and Open team selections don't”

The more relevant question is why none of the selections merit a news item on the EBU's own web-site?

Or am I missing something?
Aug. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like the principle that we should describe a the features of a hand, rather than using a bridge term which may have different meanings for different people. But is it practical?

Consider a simple bridge term such as “Balanced”. I could point you to any number of old texts, which describe this term as referring to hands with a 4333, 4432 or 5332 pattern and this is what I have always understood by term. But players have expanded the number of hand patterns that they include in their 1NT opening with 5422, 6322 and 4441 hands often opened 1NT and I now often find that when players use the term balanced, they are using it to include these patterns. The result is that players use the term balanced in the later auction in a fuzzy way and the answer is not always helpful.

Three possibilities come to mind:
(1) We have some accepted definition of these terms and players are considered to have provided mis-information if their hand does not conform to the “accepted definition”. I can see all sorts of regional problems as well as skill-level issues with this approach. But this is probably the correct approach with certain bridge terms - “forcing”, “game-forcing” and “take-out” probably do need to have accepted definitions.
(2) We take the Ed Reppert approach and not use a term such “balanced”, but precisely describe the possible hand types. I am inclined to agree with this approach for convention names (“Leaping Michaels”, “Ghestem”, “SWINE” are inadequate disclosures), as well as for terms such as “Weak” (what is the range?). But I see practical problems when we apply this logic to some common bridge terms such as “balanced”, “splinter” and “fragment”. An over-long explanation might sometimes make things less clear to the opponents.
(3) We take the Kit Woolsey approach and continue to use simple terms, such as “balanced”, accepting that this is a fuzzy explanation. The opponents can always ask for clarification if necessary. I think that this is the correct middle way for some common bridge terms such as “balanced”. I would include “fragment” in this category.
Aug. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It would almost be strange if there were not hesitation and it could mean anything - could be considering, pass, 5, bidding own suit, investigating slam …
Aug. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2NT opening in our methods. But 1 otherwise.
Aug. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You might not get the chance to bid 6 if partner bids 6 in response to your “pick-a-slam”. But 6 might still be the better contract.

With hind-sight I quite like Jyri's 5 response and I would expect partner to interpret it correctly.
Aug. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the opponents have an agreement to to jump-shift on a singleton under some circumstances, then they should be alerting because you “are entitled” to know, rather than because you “would appreciate” knowing.

They should be alerting because the regulations require an alert, not out of courtesy (which is what I interpret Ed as saying).

If the opponents have no such agreement (quite likely for most pairs, I would think), then in my opinion, the bid is a psyche. Nothing wrong with that - psyches are part of the game.
Aug. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is easy to follow the principle “never complain, never explain” when you are deceased.
Aug. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I come from a background of weak NT / 4-card majors. My perspective is:

Q1. Yes the auction 1m, 1M; 2M is more constructive in the context of a weak NT system. You can guarantee that opener has extras, either in the form of 15+ HCP if balanced or the additional playing strength from an unbalanced hand and usually a five-card side suit (4441 hands being the exception). You need to agree whether you will include three-card raises in your 1m, 1M; 2M auction and if so what hand types (there are pros and cons either way).

Q2. I don't see the need to open 1 on all balanced hands - but in our system we will often open 1M with balanced hands outside of the range!

Q3. Most of your NT responding structure will still work when playing a weak NT. Jacoby transfers are extremely useful and I don't see why you would want to jettison them. Texas transfers are much less useful. Prefer instead to play 1NT, 4M as natural allowing you to play 4M from either side (4M direct or via Jacoby transfers) depending upon hand texture. If you don't yet have a sound run-out method over 1NT doubled, you should add one.

More generally, I wouldn't bother varying the no-trump range depending on vulnerability, but I am more nervous opening 1NT in third seat - this is where you might want to keep things more sound.

Support doubles / redoubles are much less important in a weak NT base and I would strongly suggest that they are abandoned. A better use for the double is to show a balanced hand in the strong NT range, but an inadequate stop.
Aug. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree, 1C natural(4+ clubs) seems to be a fundamental omission.
July 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This post illustrates the dangers of referring to a convention by name, rather than describing what is the agreed meaning of the bid.

The Opening Post describes a 3H bid as a Western Cue bid. David comes from the UK and does not understand the meaning of a “Western Cue Bid” and asks what it is and is given a reference with: “The Western Cue Bid is a 3-level cuebid that asks partner to bid 3NT with a stopper in the opponents' suit”. Clearly under this definition a 4H call cannot be a Comparable Call since (a) it is not at the three level and (b) it cannot be asking partner to bid 3NT.

David thanks Steve for the definition and states that it is what we call a DAB . But the definition of a DAB in my partnership is: “We have the values for game, but I have no clear bid. Please describe your hand further”. Using this definition, a 4H call may, or may not, be a comparable call – I have no idea since the OP did not state what a 4H call would mean.

To answer the question in the Opening Post, I would want to know (a) what was the intended meaning (not the convention name) of the 3H bid and (b) what is the partnership agreed meaning for a 4H bid.
July 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Am I missing the part where you told us whether it is IMPs or MPs?

EDIT: sorry, yes I did miss it in the bullet point questions. Oops.
July 7, 2018
Brian Davies edited this comment July 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not my methods, but the hand suits the methods and 2 seems obvious.
July 4, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top