Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Tim Goodwin
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 61 62 63 64
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is the reason to bid 2: just because you can? You say that you are bidding out your shape, but you never disclosed your 3rd club. If opener rebids 2N, he will have an easy raise when responder rebids 3 (or 3) and will be comfortable if responder rebids 3, 3, or 3N.

I think the “shape showing” value of 2 is an illusion on this hand.
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not single-dummy, but surely you can make a small adjustment for the difference between single-dummy and double-dummy if you think it important. Especially for the vague sort of problem this is.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also had 7/8 with USA2 instead of Norway. I expect you are correct that there are quite a few of us.
Sept. 22
Tim Goodwin edited this comment Sept. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One-level is not a typo. It is intended to bar one-level transfer openings (as has been discussed recently in anither thread).
Sept. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some people don't start playing duplicate until their 50s. Should we have a “junior” event for them?
Sept. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it has more to do with randomizing events, even team games, due to unfamiliarity and/or because some are unprepared to face them. Or, even just because they might be superior and the experts need their comfort with “regular” methods maintained.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMO: no. The potential for responder to pass 2 makes the defense more difficult; I believe if 2 were 100% forcing, it would have a better chance of being allowed.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We have a new generation of bridge players?
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's quite a dropoff between 9th and 10th in the poll, I bet you aren't alone in selecting the top 8.
Sept. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
HCP is not, in my opinion, a method of judgment. Now, if you just call it “points” that's another story.
Sept. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is possible that one plays a multi-meaning bid where one meaning is unlikely (say <5%). A multi 2 which shows a weak major one-suiter or a balanced 23-24 maybe. Should we ignore the strong possibility in our description because it happens infrequently?

I think Andy is onto something when he asks what percentage of 9 (or 16) HCP hands that meet the shape requirement for 1 are not opened 1? It might be 98% do something other than open 1. For my multi example it might be 98% of balanced hand with 23 or 24 HCP open 2. This should be taken into account when deciding how to disclose (IMO, of course).
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Doubles are not bids.
Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or, this is a place for good/bad 2NT: opener's direct 3 is encouraging whereas a 2NT relay to 3 is just competitive. I think 4 over a direct, constructive but NF, 3 would rarely occur, but would treat it as forcing (choice of games).
Aug. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Where in the chart is the required frequency of the additional hand type addressed?
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe a modified MOSCITO is allowed.
Aug. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not all Artificial openings are allowed. I believe you said in another thread that transfer openings are not allowed. So, an artificial 1 opening bid (at least Average strength) showing only length in spades is not permitted (except in 6+ board segments).

What about the method I mentioned above: a 1 opening bid which shows either 1) length in spades (Average+) or 2) super strong with length in hearts (let's just call it GF)?
Aug. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would it also be legal if the opening bid were 1 instead of 1? 1 instead of 1? (Defined the same: 1) canape with diamonds and a major; 2) diamonds; or 3) clubs with at least Average strength?)
Aug. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It appears that a 1 opening which shows length in spades is not allowed (in <6 board segments), but an opening that shows either:

1) length in spades; or
2) 26+ HCP with length in hearts

is allowed. Is that your reading?

This could be described as absurd, so likely this was not the intent of the rules.
Aug. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Disallowed on the Open Chart:

An Artificial 1-level opening bid in any seat that could contain less than Average Strength.

Average Strength is defined as:

A hand that has at least 10 HCP or meets the “Rule of 19”.

You should not use HCP to define your range–10-15 HCP does not describe the example hand–but, if you describe it as “10-15 or meets the rule of 19” it would appear you are fine as far as this Open Chart rule is concerned.

To me, it comes down to whether this (disallowed) applies:

*** In segments of fewer than 6 boards, an Artificial 1-level opening bid showing length only in a known suit other than the one opened, unless that bid is also Strong and Forcing.

Your opening shows either:

1) Diamonds plus a major;
2) Diamonds; or
3) Clubs.

If it was only option 3) it would not be allowed (in segments of fewer than six boards). Whether adding those other options in makes it legal is up to interpretation. My guess is the intent of the framers was to disallow this method (in segments of fewer than six boards). I'm voting “allowed” because that appears to be the literal interpretation.
Aug. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, there is a tendency for some not to read a post before responding.

I think the answer to your question is that a 2 rebid here is fine with a four-card spade suit but many would expect extra values or an unbalanced hand for you to freely bid 1 here. Whether either of those is the case is really up to partnership agreement.
Aug. 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 61 62 63 64
.

Bottom Home Top