Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wendelin Albert
1 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is bridge not a wonderful game. I have quite the opposite attitude. I never liked to open 1NT with a 5 card major. Then I tried it. Now I really hate it. So for me 1NT denies a 5 card major and it will be hard to convince me otherwise.
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In case 3 (3NT) the information loss ist exactly the same, isnt it?
Opener must reveal if he has an major and likewise if he has none. In the other 2 cases you are right, he doesnt have to show the major, partner is not interested, at the expense that partner has to reveal more.
Not a very convincing reason for me to switch.
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have seen that argument a few times, but I dont really understand it. How can you disguise openers pattern by playing puppet stayman instead of ordinary stayman and still have a benefit.
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you only bid to contracts, you are 100% sure to make, I think you might still loose imps or mp on average.
Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the french system you have to bid 3SA with that hand.
But I fail to see the problem with that.
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Contrary to most here, I would let the result stand. Yes, North/South have failed to give an adequat explanation of their follow ups. But what was East thinking when he bid 5 over 5? If North has the Minors why bid 5. If North has the Mayors why not Double again?
Dec. 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it is a difficult hand and I was often in worse contracts myself, so I dont really blame anyone. While 2/1 systems have their advantages, in this situation they have a handicap. It might help to knew if responder can have an invitational hand with a long minor.
The first 2 bid were surely dictated by system, so no one is to blame.
Some have objections to the 2 reverse, but I think you should describe your hand if possible. Best imho is to play that bid as gameforce. 3 from partner is ok if it doesnt show an invitational hand. Partners raise to 4 is then normal, else he could have bid 3SA directly over 1SA. But after partners 5 bid he should just bid 5 as to much, especially in is missing.
Dec. 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One possibility to invite with 5431 7-8 points hands is to use stayman with this hands. You immediatly know of a 4 card M opposite. There is a price to pay, you cant play garbage Stayman.
Nov. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1NT, what else?
Oct. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another book is : “La Signalisation” by Philippe Cronier
ISBN: 978-37240-007-7
While I like most of SEF bidding system I dislike the signaling method very much.
Oct. 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was he? How am I supposed to know this? It would have been easy to say at World Cham.. But he explizitly says that W. Avarelli never played for the Blue Team again.
And how is this a hint that W. Avarelli was seen as too weak, when he played for the same team again at other opportunities?
Oct. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I dont get it. “Ron Von der Porten:
But the world of the Blue Team did change, as Walter never played for the Team again, being replaced by Benito Bianchi in 1973.”
And then we have the topic of “Playing with Michael Rosenberg against WalterAvarelli and the BlueTeam ” which took place in 1974.
Someone is wrong here.
Oct. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On 2 of the 4 problems the bidding changed between presenting the problems and giving the solutions. So which bidding really happened at the table?
Oct. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I fail to see what extra agreements you need. If 1 is always unbalanced you also have to decide if 2 is GF or not. Where is the difference?
I play it as invitational+ but even if played it as GF, you always need a way to show extras to look for a possible slam.
Oct. 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the modern trend is to bid 1NT with balanced hands for the reasons given here: limit the shape and strength of the hand and looking, if neccessary, for a fit later.

I prefer to bid if I have 4 of them with any hand not strong enough for 2. Yes there are downsides, but I think they are exaggerated. With the 2 hands above I bid 2SA and 2 without seeing much problems here. Partner knows that I can have a balanced hand, so he should be hardly surprised.
Oct. 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Im sorry, then I got it wrong. I read, that you suggested, that partner might have doubled with the 4054 Hand too, as he did on a previous opportunity.
Oct. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have only read the free chapter on take-out doubles, so any conclusion drawn by me is not based on the entire book.

I have to say, that I do not agree with the conclusions of the author.

Maybe the italian methods are explained in detail in the book elsewhere, but without that explanation the quizzes are meaningless.

But what me disappointed more are the examples given in this chapter. The bidding of the opponents is given, but without any explanation. If I assume a “normal” meaning, then some of the alternative hands, that the author things are possible, are simply not realistic, provided the opponents have not psyched on the hand.

Just one example (Page 76, Sample one)

D'Alelios Hand is given:
Q4 J 6 5 10 9 8 7 6 K D 3
and the bidding was: (1) x (3) in front of him.

Partner who doubled , held :
- A 10 8 4 K J 4 2 A 9 8 5 4
and the board led to a success.
Then the author remarqued that doubler might also have had:

A Q 8 3 - A 10 6 5 4 K J 5 4
as he doubled with this in a previous deal.

No, he cannot have this Hand, there were at least 14 spades in the deck, what seems a bit unlikely.

Another thing is the lack of alternative explanations. In most cases where an italian bid a rather bad suit, it seems he has another 4 card suit in case he did not hit Partners suit.
Oct. 1, 2018
Wendelin Albert edited this comment Oct. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For me, a penalty double shows about 14-17 hcp with a good suit to lead, so basically a one suiter that is to strong to bid naturally, or a hand of 18 or more hcp, possibly a little shaded against a weak notrump.
Sept. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From the discussion so far I can deduce that no one here plays the reverse as game force. If the bidding can drop below game, is not 2NT the most reasonable spot, so that playing lebensohl here is a bit counterintuitiv? The only other reasonable partscore seems to be 3, and in this case responder might simply bit it?
Aug. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If my partners agree (not that many do) I play it as Lawrence suggest: 3 is a limit raise with 4, 2 is game force with 4. The limit raise can be a bit weaker as in an uncontested auction with shortness.
April 30, 2018
1 2
.

Bottom Home Top