Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Imtiaz Husain
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is very interesting. I guess if you don't play GB2NT here
you could bid 3 on

xxx Kxxx x Qxxxx

and pass on

xx Kxxx xx Qxxxx

depending on your treatment. I am just theorizing here.

I am not convinced that the GB2N is really helping here, other than right siding the contract. Even that is debatable.

I am still not sure what you would bid if you were playing
GB2NT on the following hand unless you double intending to bid 2N
especially if partner bids 2

Txx QJTx Axx KJT


The advantage of passing allows South to bid again as well as
showing extras. Knowing that they too should have a fit keeps the
bidding lower. The GB2NT bid takes away some of those options.

I guess that I am saying is that because the support double
already provides a temporizing bid, it is ABSOLUTELY forcing to the 2-level of the supported suit. This treatment eliminates
the need for a GB2NT.

The advantage of the GB2NT is clear in other situations,
I am not sure it is correct in the case of support doubles
and redoubles.
May 3, 2019
Imtiaz Husain edited this comment May 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So 1-(p)-2-(p)-2 promises 6s not 7s, so 2s + ruff
A and a club return still seems like down 1 to me. Or am I missing something? Did North expect that missing the A Declarer needs 7s to open? Why would partner lead a doubleton yet have no trumps when he could have led A instead?

What am I missing?
May 3, 2019
Imtiaz Husain edited this comment May 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Craig,

I provide the following slight differences:
a) (otherwise, compete/invite or bid game in s)
b) primary concern should be the suit bid and raised.
2N should show stoppers in that suit.
c) 10-12 hcp as the range for a 2N bid.

Also I think what you are saying your 2N followed by passing
the relay to 3 would have shown something like:

i) Qxx QJTx x QJxxx

while 3 would show
ii) Tx QJTx Axx KJTx

I prefer having it the other way around and using 2N to bid
hand ii). I don't mind passing hand i) as I think it is probably forcing to 2 anyway. I might get to bid 3 later on. Also I really wouldn't want to bid 2 on

iii) Txx QJTx Axx KJT


I have enjoyed your insightful thoughts, even though somehow
I feel GB2NT should not be used in raising a partners suit at
the cost of losing the 2N bid. I think if you want to keep
the GB2NT in this sequence you might have to switch around
the meanings of x and 2 to allow x followed by 2N to retain
the meaning of the previous 2N bid.
May 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 shows 6-10 hcp and :5+ (not 4 as in this case)
pass is the textbook bid - not sure I like it - I might upgrade
my hand to avoid passing and either double, bid 2 or 2

4 shows 10-12 hcp and :4+
(not convinced with this textbook treatment either)

2 is suggestive of 6-10 hcp :5+ but may only have :4

2 shows 10-12 hcp forcing 1 round.
May 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the point is that a forward-going
1-(p)-1-(x)-xx-(2)-x suggesting no
wasted values in and a desire to compete
would have helped here.


Not sure what a 2 bid would have meant instead
but depends on partnership understanding.
May 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After a Sandwich seat takeout dbl followed by a support redouble and the major suit bidder having only 4, I think it is important to consider where game may be played.

After 1-(p)-1-(x)-xx-(2)-?

x catch-all unbalanced
2 to play
2 is forcing
2N is needed to show an balanced invitational hand with
stoppers
3 to play
3 is some game forcing hand
3 Heart invitational hands

Higher level bids showing various fits etc.

Not sure why a GB2NT is needed here, especially at the
cost of the 2N bid.

1-(p)-1-(x)-xx-(2)-2N*-(3) and I am not sure
I really want to be in this spot as N-S. Yes its better
than having doubled 3, but its really more trying to
deflect the blame from a DSI misunderstanding to a
GB2NT one.
May 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I intended it to be kinda tongue and cheek comment.

I think Krzysztof Martens calls it “Modern Bidding”.
Bridge World calls it 21st Century bidding.

In my humble opinion,
there are 3 schools of 2/1 currently:

a) Hardy or Classical Version

b) Lawrence or Polish Version

c) Modern or Transfer Version

(The same can be done with Strong Club systems)

I voted non-forcing constructive. But my tongue and cheek
comment was intended to say transfers are really mainstream.

With Transfers this forcing vs non-forcing issue is pretty much handled. The question then becomes invitational vs not.
March 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 transfer to
2 transfer to
2X-1 transfer to X hcp:8-10
2X poor raise hcp:5-7

otherwise non-forcing typically
March 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike Wenble wrote:

I find the idea that the sequence (1)- X - (1) - 1 denies four spades much more appealing.

Doesn't (1)-x-(1)* show a transfer to spades anyway? :)
Following that logic then (1)- X - (1)* - 1* should
show either clubs or a NT-ish hand?
March 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike Lawrence in his book on Takeout doubles describes the following sequences:

(1)-x-(p)-1-(p)-2 “shows 16-18 support points and four card support. Some might require a point more. In the interest of safety, you should adhere to this guideline. In the interest of winning, you should be willing to raise on a little less than sixteen as long as you have four trumps and quality points.”

See hand LHO bids new suit (1)-x-(1)-1-(p)-? (b) + ©
“You don't need the traditional sixteen or more for the raise,
but you do need more than a minimum.”

Since the advancer in the poll has made a free bid they should have at least 4 hcp with 5 up to 9 hcp with 4. (hand b)


3 bid now should serve the invitational hand w/16-18

2 should show more than a minimum hand with 4. Personally I think it should show willingness to compete to 3 with defensive tricks and some willingness to penalize competition at the three level.
March 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North is slightly strong for a 1 bid. It is reasonable to think that EW have a 9+ card fit in . Plus the concentration of values in the majors, the fifth spade being worth an extra 3 support points, both kings being good tenances for the opening
lead. (Hopefully opener doesn't have a singleton ). I am expecting West to be bidding 3 anyway. Matchpoints and non-vulnerable, this should be a contested auction. Just in case
South only has 3 North needs to bid his hand to its full worth.

On the downside, NS won't be scoring many tricks ruffing due to similar hand patterns. North made a bad decision to upgrade the
hand after only bidding 1S. Making the leap from 2 to 4 is
wrong here.

2 by South should show a reasonable double, about 14 hcp and a 4 cards suit with the missing Ace at least. A little less, if the suit is singleton.

I am assuming the point mentioned like 16+ are really
support points not hcp?
March 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1♣-(2)-
X - take-out
2♠ - limited
2NT - some sort of Lebensohl with transfers
3♣ - transfer to
3 - transfer to asks for stopper
3 - transfer to may bid 3N or higher after transfer
3♠ - transfer to
4 - transfer to



1♣-(2)-
X - take-out
2NT - some sort of Lebensohl with transfers
3♣ - transfer to
3 - transfer to
3 - transfer to asks for stopper denies 4
3♠ - transfer to


The advantage of transferring is that you can show your suit
and then ask for a stopper, or use lebensohl to either show your
stopper while transferring or show your 4 card major without stopper.

Key difference here I would suggest is to use the overcalled suit
to ask for a stopper rather than using it for Stayman - with transfers
and the takeout double you don't really need Stayman. It is kind of obsolete.
How many ways do you need to show a 4 card major?
Feb. 20, 2019
Imtiaz Husain edited this comment Feb. 20, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Greg
I would be interested.

Regards

Imtiaz
Jan. 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Dawn,

I might be open for this event. While I may not be a pro, I am a strong player who is training part-time to be an expert (I know that sounds like an oxy-moron - it is what it is). Let me know if you are interested and perhaps we can play a few sessions on BBO to decide.


Imtiaz
Jan. 25, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Kyle,

Looks like I am open to play in the Memphis Nationals. I played a match against you in the Zip Knockout in Atlanta last year. My team won 2 Zip Knockouts events in Atlanta.


Let me know if you are interested

Regards


Imtiaz
Jan. 25, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that 1-(1)-x should show 4+ while 1-(1)-1 should deny spades or a spade stopper.
Jan. 23, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My Luck, I would find my partner with the AKQ or even AKQJ of Spades
Jan. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess I always miss the point - 4NT showing longer than
makes a lot of sense.
Oct. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Same here. But I would only bid 5. Partner did not bid 4, so slam is unlikely.
Oct. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am a relatively new bridge player. While we all try to obtain knowledge wherever we may find it: Mike Lawrence is who I study
and credit for my bidding. Martin Hoffman and Kit Woolsey are
who I study for my card play.
While I have never met Martin, I feel like I have lost one of my mentors.

Condolences to Audrey.
May 17, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top