Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Paul Holmes
1 2 3 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks DB for the reference to Mott the Hoople's “All the Way from Memphis”; I'd only heard Brian May's cover.
March 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“3 5+/5+ minors at least invitational” but forcing? Seems strange.
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@DJ I made a poor choice of example hand… AQJxxx / A / x / AQJTx?
Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry to say, it was hypothetical. I held the 2 opener and was wondering after the hand if bidding 6 without the K could mean something useful. I was thinking along the lines of Andrew Yeckel above… it would have to be a hand where partner did the right thing with or without the K. Something like AQJxx / AK / x / AQJTx; without K, just play 6, but with K (and all keys) 7 looks good.

Seemed like a possible way to recover from the 4NT that people seem to dislike. :)
Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure we'd be on solid ground here. I _think_ they would be “showing” as you imply; i.e. 6 over 6 would show the diamond king (and all keys).
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMPs. I agree re: bidding 2NT. I don't disagree re: 4. These were partner's choices, I was the 2 opener.
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No good agreements:
5 = Q with K, maybe other kings
5 = no Q
5NT = Q with no K
6 = Q with K, no K, maybe K
6 = Q with K, no other K
Never discussed anything else.

(edited after Steve Myerson's comment below; I had forgotten 5 was available.)
Feb. 23
Paul Holmes edited this comment Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@MR I didn't mean to imply that I couldn't see an alternative; just that I didn't know which alternative JH was suggesting. Nor did I mean to defend the choice (partner's choice, incidentally; I was the 2 opener); I simply didn't consider it germane to my question.
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, forgot to mention that partner could have bid 6 suit immediately to show an odd number of keycards and a void.
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure what other bid you're suggesting. Regardless, thanks for the pointless implied criticism. Also, there's no hyphen in “hijack”.

Any ideas on the answer to the question?
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems like the problem could have been prevented by LHO leading face down.

Sounds tricky to rule, since I don't think the auction is over. Might need to assign an artificial score, as much as everyone hates that.
Feb. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Craig's suggestion.

But answering the original post, I think what you have in mind is legal if 1NT is forcing. If it's non-forcing, I think you're out of luck. See Open Chart, Opening Bids, #6.

http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/about/181AttachmentD.pdf

Whether or not what you are interested in has merit, I'll leave to you and others to decide.
Dec. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Richard Fleet: Language (of which bridge bidding is an example) is contextual. If you are in a context in which “Bergen raise etc.” has more meaning to your audience than “4-card limit raise”, then I think it's reasonable to argue the former is superior. I've certainly played against opponents at clubs for whom the convention name gives more information to them than the conventional description of the bid. Have you not?
Dec. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, anything that decreased the amount of good bridge available to watch on BBO would be a bad change for a lot of us.

I'd echo Alan's sentiment. I don't think the fundamental problem is “NABCs aren't attractive enough because they're too common” or “NABCs aren't attractive enough because they're too small”. Those seem like the main problems that decreasing the number of NABCs would “fix”. I'd be more inclined to suggest those are problems with Regionals… so perhaps this fix ought to be considered for Regionals instead.
Oct. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To Alan I say http://www.poorbridge.com/?misc=28
Sept. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can I just vote for “I like Phillip Martin and want him to post more”?
Sept. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good luck. It would be good to let us know what 24 hours you're talking about, including time zone.
Aug. 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know I would be happier without the compass, and with just the bidding diagram in the “middle”.
Aug. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Mike. Was not surprised to see the two 0-2500 finalists; we went 1-1-1 against them in the round before the quarterfinals, -10 IMPs overall for the loss. The losing finalists are a pretty neat story, it's four high school kids and their teacher/coach from China… their teacher is just so enthusiastic about bridge that he encouraged and taught a bunch of kids at the high school.
Aug. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't suppose you could arrange with BBO for us to donate BB$ to Bridgewinners, could you?
June 7, 2018
1 2 3 4
.

Bottom Home Top