Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Donald Lurie
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12 13 14 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thx for response:
This was a 2nd seat opening bid of 1, to which a response of 3 would show a mixed raise, and 3 shows a 4+-card LR. most 3-cd support GF's start with semi-artificial 2, while Jac 2NT and splinter are used for GF hands with 4+-card trump support. The acknowledgement regarding 3 as a counter-try has already been discussed above
Had it been a 3rd seat opener, we play 2-way reverse Drury.
thx
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thx Craig:
I already agreed that the west hand (moi) should counter-try (it was late).
But, supposed trump suit was s and counter-try not available. Then, using adj LTC, is west hand a 6-loser hand opposite a supposed 8-loser hand with 4+ trumps, at worst needing 2-2 trump break, and game should be bid at imps? 24 - (8 + 6) = 10 ?
and/ or, should the east hand upgrade to 7 loser adj losers and should, therefore, GF. not sure, is why i posted.
Feb. 12
Donald Lurie edited this comment Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thx for your come-back:
not at all disagreeing with your comment, in fact, I agree with you.
Wondering if that (counter-try) was better bid or if, via adjusted LTC, my hand becomes a 6 loser hand opposite a 4-card LR. and, using same loser count, is the East hand a 7 loser hand. In other words, if i play East for 4 trumps, don't I usually make opposite an 8 loser hand provided trumps are 2-2. 'Tis why I think, at imps, i should at least rebid 3 if not just bid the game and hope for 2-2 trump break at worst.
Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, thx
re 3H as counter-try: see OP. its states that the counter-try was available…..not sure that's the issue, though. Maybe it is: am sure responder/East would have gone had West bid 3.
Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I just checked the results for this board.
There were a few +200s, playing in s, some +170s, and a few +140s. and 1 minus score.
Only 3 out of 14 or 15 pairs were in game, and each played 3NT contracts. With North holding Qxx of s and AJ tight in s, and s breaking 3-3, 9 or 10 tricks became available. That QJx was a nice holding.
.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The responses so far are interesting, and thank you to all who have shared.
This hand occurred during a friendly game on BBO.

I posted this hand because it called into question the meaning of a 3 bid over 2. i.e.: is it natural or a cue bid in support of s, meaning “partner, i want to make the strongest game try I can”. I was also interested in how many would feel that I should have just gambled out a 4 call over 2?
I actually initially did make the 3 “cue bid”. However, when when partner passed, i asked for/ got an “undo” and changed the bid to 3 (it was a game among friends).
I still wonder what the general interpretation of a 3 bid would be? Perhaps a separate poll is in order. What does Advancer do in response to partner's overcall and rebid when Advancer hold long, decent s such as the sample hand Paulo B mentioned.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
semi-spoiler alert
3NT is cold if played from the right side
Feb. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thx for response
question: why should snapdragon here show 5+ s (with tolerance) when you could still bid s at the 1-level, as opposed to double showing 4s (with tolerance)? admittedly, at 2-level things would be different.
just curious.
Feb. 6
Donald Lurie edited this comment Feb. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Out of curiosity (no cats around for the curiosity to kill): what kind of hand would a 2 bid in this sequence show? lho opened, partner overcalled, rho took a bid
Feb. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John:
your voice is superb.
Feb. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I, for one, don't play enough and goodness knows that I don't have the cognitive skills to utilize (or even remember) all of this information. Yet, I would like to have the information available to me if for no other reason than to have some idea what it is that I don't know and have it available should i wish to learn it. Sometimes ignorance is not bliss.
After all, isn't this why school insists on teaching us all that stuff that we're never going to use but at least we know it's there?

To Mike C: Thanks for sharing. I have or am aware of most of that which you list, and know where to find a lot of info on the internet. I might also add justin lall's web site as a resource. I was thinking that CW might have referring to other issues or innovations, and that some may be things that are only permitted at the highest levels of competition.
Now the tricks are getting one's partner to be willing to learn and incorporate the new information, and being able to remember things such as what's been played. But that's a totally different issue.
DHL
Feb. 4
Donald Lurie edited this comment Feb. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chris W represented that there is an ever-increasing skill gap between world class players and other expert players. (I assume that also includes all of us that are not in the expert class as well.) He then represented that “Theoretical advances in both bidding and defensive carding give world class players more tools at their disposal”.

Assuming the assertion that WC players have more tools at their disposal to be true raises the question (at least in my mind) of why is this true. What are these tools and theoretical advances to which Chris W referred: perhaps some examples might be given. And why isn't this new information trickling down/ being made available to the rest of us (and not for a fee). Ideas shouldn't come with price tags. In fact, I might ask why there isn't an active push to disseminate the new theoretic advances and applications any bridge player at any level who is willing to try to learn?
Feb. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom: thx. You know who my “regular” BBO partner is (I think), and he is not a club-level player. Just sometimes has alternative approaches to some things and sometimes has been very creative (in a positive manner).
This isn't about what is commonly played or what the bid is supposed to be. Rather, it's about looking at whether the norm is actually the more beneficial of the two methods.
DHL
Jan. 31
Donald Lurie edited this comment Jan. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
thx R
so have I. it's just that my reg P's different spin on the situation got me to thinking about the sequence and about what the advantages (if any) are to both approaches?
DHL
Jan. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As of this comment, the vote is almost unanimous for a 1 balance (as I expected). I was always taught that re-opening jump-overcalls are intermediate (approx. 11-15, 6-card suit), perhaps even a better hand if 3 of a minor. If this is not the commonly accepted understanding, someone please advise me now.

However, this is not what happened at the table. The person holding this hand, admittedly a less-than-expert player, balanced with 2. Holding something like Kx, Axxx, ATx, Qxxx, i raised to 4. While this contract should have been -1 on the lead of a high and a shift, accidents do happen and the contract was permitted to succeed.

The reason that I posted the hand was greatly influenced by the fact that, when I gave the above hand to my regular partner, he, too, selected a balance of 2. He felt that the hand wasn't good enough to take 2 bids should partner respond to the balance and, that it was likely that we would wind up in 2 anyway should partner respond. One could argue that bidding 2 with such a hand at least makes it more difficult for the opening bidder to make a competitive call below the 2NT level.

Now my regular partner and I don't always agree on certain bidding issues but this one got me to wondering. Which approach rates to yield better results in the long run (at match points, at IMPS, at IMP Pairs)? In other words, daring the question established practice/ general consensus as suggested by results of this OP so far, whether or not playing a re-opening jump-overcall of 2M as intermediate is competitively optimal? (and not just another carry-over from rubber bridge or merely another issue of partnership agreement.) And, which type of hand has a higher probability of occurring: the good wk 2M, or the opening bid with a 6-card suit in the balancing seat?

Appreciate comments/ feedback on benefits and liabilities of both approaches.
TIA
DHL
Jan. 30
Donald Lurie edited this comment Jan. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
what happens is that partner, thinking he is opposite a true or quasi 3-suiter (or at least one where s and s are likely not a major issue: pardon the pun), thought that the AKQx of clubs looked really good and made a move toward possible slam. even 5 has little to no play after a K of lead and the Q being offside.
Jan. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a serious issue. To me, the whole idea should be to help accommodate such a person and maintain inclusion. The idea of possibly telling someone they can no longer play should not even be a consideration imo.
Is this mr harry aware of these difficulties that he exhibited? Several good suggestions have been made. Would having a supportive person at his side just to monitor and help him stay focused/ attentive be helpful? Has the ACBL actually addressed such types of issues and/ or provided any guidelines for accommodating? None of us are getting any younger.
(This article/story made me wonder how the TDs at a tournament would handle such a situation should someone enter an event and then experience the types of difficulties that harry reportedly exhibited at the club?) I know I sometimes have moments where my focus or attention lapse for more than just a few seconds (like totally spacing out). It's happened at the bridge table (Reg'l & Nat'l) and I've gotten director calls as a result, sometimes complaining about BIT during bidding, sometimes for length of time between plays when my mind just went blank. Those occasions were a bit uncomfortable for me (pardon the pun) and the two times when the rulings went against me were upsetting because I felt I had being penalized for something i had been unaware of and had had no control over. No, I don't remember the specifics, something to do with logical alternatives due to the alleged BIT - it was a few years ago.
Jan. 30
Donald Lurie edited this comment Jan. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
and if harry is not usually as oblivious as portrayed on this one occasion?
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
spoiler alert
the hand is not a bluhmer
It is the companion hand to T932, J43, 98, AKQ2
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
as i saw it, this hand was an issue of strategy. however, i'm not sure which of the 3 suggested bids would have been successful in keeping e/w out of the makable 4 contract. I opted for maximum pressure (knowing that I had outside honors that the opponents could, therefore, not have), but that didn't stop lho from bidding 4.
West's hand was: AJ97, AJ75, A, T832
East's hand was QT8543, 643, 43, A7
Would bidding less that 4 have stopped them from bidding game? very questionable

partner held 63, K982, 52, KJ954
5x was - 300 Should 5 be bid? net result lose 5.1 imps
Yes, I know that the opponents are entitled to a good result every once in a while, that it will happen, just not at my table, please!
thx
Jan. 18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12 13 14 15
.

Bottom Home Top