Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Csaba Czimer
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, you seem to ignore that South had the opportunity to overcall 2. Why he did not do that?

(a) he decided that he was too strong for that. In this case his 3 is automatic to show that strength.

(b) because of his 4-card . In this case 3 is probably the right bid.

of course the border between (a) and (b) is not always clear.

If South had had AKJ2, J8632, 9, AK2 I would tend to vote for (b), but with the original hand your suit qualities allow an easy 2 overcall, thus I strongly favour (a)
Jan. 12, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Jan. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even easier, there is a print button on the top-right corner of each article. For me it was perfectly fine (Chrome, PDF instead of hardcopy)
An example:
http://www.hanglemezek.hu/csabi/kit.pdf
Jan. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I tried to print Kit's last article with Chrome (to PDF Creator) and it was perfect
Jan. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Print it directly from your browser. Select the text (with diagrams) which you'd like to print, open the print dialog box of your web browser, choose selection only, that's it. You can also redirect it to PDF and later merge the parts if an article is multi-page.
Jan. 12, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Jan. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have bid 2NT instead of this 2 and everything would have been clear, but as I was too coward or too clever, now I pass 3, because 2 showed my strong hand, and partner knows it, thus his 3 is weak, should be something like Jxxx, xxx, xx, KQxx.
Jan. 12, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Jan. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I hope fast arrival is included in common sense.

I would have never bid 3 with this hand, which should be a serious slam try playing 2/1 GF. Either 4 splinter on my second turn or simply 4.
Dec. 15, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think the alternative play is better.
Qx or Q is 33%, you need 3-2 trumps additionally, together it's 22%.
You also make when someone has Qxx and 3 trumps, and the K is on, that is cca 68% * 60% / 2 / 2 = 10%.
Total = 32%.
Dec. 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The slam is not so great at all. How do you play it if they lead 2 rounds of diamonds?

Trumps should work, that is they need to be 3-2 or J singleton (it's 74%).
Additionally we need the finesse and at most 4-2 , (cca. 48%), it's better than playing on 3-2 , because in that case you also need the club finesse at the end, around 35% altogether.)
If trumps were xxxx - J we also need the club hook.
Altogether it's around 34%.

Regarding the bidding I agree with Kit: North has overbid (when playing standard I normally bid splinter with 4-loser hands, this one is 6 loser using the original method, 5 using the modified one (missing Ace = 1.5 loser, missing Queen = 0.5 loser).
Once North announced a 4-loser hand, South should ask for keycards with 3 cover cards.
Dec. 12, 2014
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Dec. 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice article, but North violated my bidding rule #2 (only have 2) which is:

“Never bid on opponents' natural 3N unless your name is Szilágyi”
which is our local equivalent of “… unless your name is Garozzo”.

Of course there are exceptions, but IMHO mere mortals score much better by not trying to find one and letting them play their 3N.
Dec. 1, 2014
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Dec. 1, 2014
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The grand is of course poor, but 6 has a good chance.

Youd'd better have a bid for hands like West's one.
Here's one possibility that I play (when not playing strong club):

2…: waiting (or 0-1 controls if you prefer)
2…3: HHxxx+ suit (or steps showing controls if you prefer)

3: Hxxxxxx(…) suit, no outside A or K
4…4: HHxxxxx(…) suit, no outside A or K
5…5: HHHxxxx(…) suit, no outside A or K

Where H = A / K / Q
Nov. 23, 2014
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Nov. 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
we play the “fork” convention in similar situations, i.e.
3 = competitive (~ 7-9 dummy points) or GF+ raise of
3 = competitive or GF+ bid in
3 = limit raise
3 = natural, invitational (can be passed)

For details, see Dani Vikor's site, bridgemagic.net
http://bridgemagic.net/2014/10/fork-convention-to-artificial-2-suiter-overcalls/
Nov. 23, 2014
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Nov. 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Folks, I think Gabor is mainly interested in your opinion and thoughts on passing with 12-13 balanced hands in 1st and 2nd seat. He knows most style of precision and played some of them too (a big fan of Mackwell, anyway). Thus, it's probably OK if you tell him what you play(ed) or prefer, but try to answer his question too :)
Nov. 21, 2014
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Nov. 21, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I liked Signal Success in Bridge by Danny Roth very much.
Nov. 21, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
-
Nov. 17, 2014
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Nov. 17, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
… but if Opener bids a Splinter (e.g. 1-1-4) then his fragment suit ( in this case) is our natural lead, thus in that situation:
- PASS: you can lead it
- DBL: lead something else
Nov. 16, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a simple rule whether our game bid establishes a force or not: when it can be based purely on distributional values then our pass is not forcing.
Examples:

1 - (1/2) - 4 - (4) - PASS: not forcing (vulnerability does not affect), because 4 may be a shape-only bid.

1 - (1) - 2 - (2) - 4 - (4) - PASS: not forcing either, because opener can have a light, shapely hand. If (s)he had had a serious game bid and wanted to establish a forcing situation then (s)he would have bid something else.
Nov. 14, 2014
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Nov. 14, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Henry, you were right, I must say. Any idiot can execute a squeeze accidentally, without even noticing what happened, the best way to show that you are doing it wittingly is claiming :)
Nov. 13, 2014
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Nov. 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1N is better than the other two (slight underbid)
2 is a bit worse (clubs are weak for this one to my taste)
2 is the worst by far (huge overbid)

There is another possibility however: had we thought one bid ahead, we might have opened 1NT, at least announcing our strength correctly. Now we have to lie a bit about shape and strength too, 1NT would have been a lie about shape only.

Of course I rarely have this problem because I prefer playing strong club (with 2 = 6+ suit, thus we open 1, then rebid 2 then 2 on 2, almost like David does)
Nov. 7, 2014
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Nov. 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like relay systems and nice complete systems in general. 25 years ago I also had this idea that 2N-3N should be transfer to clubs but rejected it very soon. If there is one thing that can be screwed up, this is surely the one.
Oct. 21, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
25 years ago we played like this:
2: 5+ , 4, game try
2: 5+ , game try (can be passed)

In a previous serious partnership we played INV+ Smolen on level 2, i.e.
2: INV+ hand, 5+ (does not promise if INV)
2: INV+ hand, 5+ (does not promise if INV)

The way we play it now:
2: 5 game try in (near) balanced hand or any 4441 GF or 5+ m GF with shortness in the other minor, or weak hand with 5 and 4+. Opener must bid 2, now 2N = 5 INV, 3m = GF, 4+ suit, short in the other minor (length can be asked), 3M: GF 4441 or 5m440, short in the other major

2: 5 game try (does not promise ), (we can stop lower than starting wit xfer)

In my newest experimental NT structure:
2: GF relay (opener's full shape can be explored)
2: 5, INV (we can stop lower than starting wit xfer)

Anyway, I've been playing second transfers after Jacoby for 27 years.
Oct. 13, 2014
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Oct. 13, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top