Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Csaba Czimer
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We experienced the same.
Feb. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On that 4th position opening: I think 2 is better.
Feb. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I prefer playing strong club too, but we all know that the weak point of these systems is the strong club opening itself. Well, it would not be if the opps would shut up :)

I disagree with the double of 2, it is an easy pass IMO. Partner would have doubled for takeout had he wanted something.

We play this one (a bit too complicated, I know):
On (1): P = 0-5, X = 5-7, system ON
On (1): P = 0-7, X = 1 response (I prefer playing artificial responses, thus it is 8-12 with 4+ or BAL in our case), 1 and up: unchanged
On (1): P = 0-7 or trap, X = 8-12 BAL or 4441, 1N: 13+ any, 2x: 5+ suit 8-12
On (1N…2): P = 0-5 or trap, DBL: 5-7 (and some 8+ with no good bid), plain bid: NAT GF, jump bid: 5-7, good suit
On (2N…): P: 0-7, DBL: GF, no clear direction (mostly BAL), suit: GF, 5+

Our 1 opening is forcing up to 1NT, thus they cannot play 1 of a suit undoubled. 2-level overcalls should be reopened if opener can imagine seeing his own hand that responder has a penalty double.

I don't like Rubensohl style responses because most often we have gameforcing response and would get too high with them, statistically we do better if our plain bids are gameforcing.

Anyway I don't mind if they make a doubled contract when they have 6-6 :)
Feb. 20, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Feb. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am a big fan of Sławiński, thank you very much for the link.
Feb. 20, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Feb. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wolff - After Bobby Wolff
Feb. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ren, simply cut this post and insert the suit sympols into your original article, it can be modified after publishing.
Feb. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nick, in reality (this Monday) West led low from QJxxxx, causing the whole show to happen! I modified East-West hands in my article a bit to make it more spectacular as a quiz. I was shocked to see their cards after the board (I was dummy) :).
Feb. 18, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Feb. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've got a copy of “Sytems in defence” by Slawinsky (in English, 1983, translated from the 3rd Polish edition, 1980). In this one he suggests the following - he calls it Combine:

H = A…J

A = AKx(…),
K = AK, KQx(…), AKJ(…),
Q = KQ, QJx(…), KQT(…),
J = QJ, JTx(…), AQJ,
T = Txx(…), AJT(…), KJT(…), Tx (NT)
9 = 9xx(…), AT9(…), KT9(…), QT9(…), 9x (NT)

low from xx against suit
highest non-potentially-trick-taking card from xxx(…)
3rd/5th from Hxx(…)
4th/6th from HHxx(…)

In other words:
- from HH doubleton the 2nd
- from short sequence (HHx(…)) the top
- from full sequence (HHH+) the 2nd, but may play the top
- from a broken sequence (AKJ, KDT, …): the 2nd (may play the top)
- J/T/9 is 0 or 2 higher
- small x is an agressive lead (from H or xx against suit)
- high x is a passive lead

Slawinsky proves across cca 60 pages that it's technically superior to any other lead system.

However, it is not exactly the same what you described.

It used to be popular in Hungary, some play it now too. I used to play it too but found it too difficult to distinguish xx from Jxx or similar and HHxx from Hxxxx, perhaps the former should not be a problem, because one should rarely lead from xx.

In short: when you play combine, noone will know anything surely, neither partner, nor declarer.
Feb. 18, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Feb. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
the other play loses only vs 3-1 trumps and Qxxx at West, which is 5.6% combined (4/10*P(4-1) * P(3-1)) = 11.4% * 49.7% = 5.6%). Or am I missing something?
Feb. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is it a better chance than 3-2 ?
Feb. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We played this one at a time (called “funny diamond”):

1: 16+, like in precision but with artificial responses (showing shape)
1: 11-15, unbalanced hand containing one or both 4-card major(s)
1: 11-15, 5+ suit
1N: 12-15 balanced
2: 11-15, 6+ or 54+ minors, denies majors
2: 11-15, 6+ , denies majors

It worked pretty well (2 might look strange but was not a real problem when we did not pass it with support in both minors.

The weak NT and 2 openings had a mild preemptive effect: the opponents could intervene only on level 2 with their major. When they bid on our 1 opening we could guess opener's major with a great chance.

Well, this one did not give up really either minor.
Feb. 6, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Feb. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think partner's 3 and then 4 was quite an intelligent sequence, bad luck that he had just the perfect cards for 6. Funny, but I feel that we both bid well, just could not realize how perfectly our hands complete each other's.
Of course had I responded 2 we probably bid 6 with these hands, but we also would have bid it when we should not have, or stopped in 5 after keycard ask - which is a disaster at MP scoring.
Jan. 24, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Jan. 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He had AK10975, K432, AQ10
Jan. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, I thought that partner had a slam try (he had). However, I thought that I have sub-minimal GF facing his club void, thus I passed. Our 2 can include a weak diamond suit like this. Had I wanted to play a slam I could have jumped to 6 and I think he would have understood it.
Jan. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eric, let's try this one:

1 - 1 // nat, 2N will show 18-19 BAL
2N - 3 // 5+ suit, GF (we bid Wolff sign-off with weak hands)
3N - 4 // 6+ , slam try, otherwise 4 in 2nd round
4N

I doubt that this 4N is to play
Jan. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If partner had not seen any slam chance he might have bid 4 on my 2N. Am I wrong?
Jan. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wished I could bid 4N as sign-off but finally decided that it probably would have been RKC as you don't normally want to sign off in 4NT (in that case 4 is probably playable too).
Jan. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am pretty sure that a “high quality” partner will (or should) take my double as game try (maximal overcall double).

In this vulnerability the problem is quite complex. I guess we can make 3 or 4 depending on partner's hand, but not sure

- if the opps go down only one then we will score badly by letting them play either cheaply or doubled, because we have 110 or more likely 140, perhaps 170 or 620
- if they go down 2 then we might make 4 (assuming 8 / 8 trumps)

What if total tricks = total trumps?
- if 10 / 6 (possible) then I should double as game try or bid 4 myself
- if 9 / 7 (most likely) then I should double as penalty (which I probably can't). But partner might bid 3 with shortness and we'll make 3.
- If 8 / 8 (may happen) then I'd better let them go down (because partner will bid if I double)
- if 7 / 9 (very unlikely) then I should pass

What if total tricks > total trumps?
- 10 / 7: double as game try or perhaps bid 4
- 9 / 8: I should bid 3 or double as game try
- 8 / 9: it's probably best to bid 3, mostly the'll be happy enough that they pushed us a level and don't risk a zero

What if total tricks < total trumps?
- 10 / 5: we should double them for 800
- 9 / 6: we should double them for 500
- 8 / 7: we should double them for 300
- 7 / 8 (very unlikely): we can double them for 100


OK, what do we think about trumps / tricks ratio? My diamond holding looks wothless in offense, but good in defence. My spade length suggests that there are no double fits around, thus I don't think there are more tricks than trumps, most likely they are equal if I have to guess.

What about strength? Most likely it's around 21 / 19 HCP, perhaps 20/20, at most 22 / 18. With 13 HCP and diamond shortness partner could have jumped to 3.

What will happen on other tables? Had they passed I would have passed too, I consider bidding only because I know partner's diamond shortness and by scoring +50 or +100 we will score badly against those who did not face intervention.

All in all passing does not look good unless partner bids 3 with diamond shortness (which may happen).

(A) double and lead the J
(B) still double, but less happily. I can't catch them, thus our best chance to score above average is that me make 3-4.
Jan. 22, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Jan. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
anyway, I would have overcalled 2 instead of doubling, though it's a bit on the heavy side.
Jan. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Personally I don't understand them. Given its level, 2N is a pre-emptive opening bid. It robs a lot of space from ourselves, thus IMHO it should not be applied with good hands when you play a good (especially relay) precision. If I had only the choices of playing it strong balanced or never opening 2N, I would choose the later.
Jan. 12, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top