Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Will Roper
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not a bridge lawyer or someone who likes digging within the laws. However, from the white book 2017:

Law 8 - End of Round
1. In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players.

My interpretation: For a teams game, the round ends when you sit down to play the next set.

LAW 63 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE
A revoke becomes established:
4. when agreement is established (as per Law 69A) to an opponent’s claim or concession; the offending side having raised no objection to it before the end of the round, or before making a call on a subsequent board.

My interpretation: This is somewhat poorly worded but the intent seems clear. If there is an accepted claim then the revoke can become established before the end of the round.

Thus I think the current/new rules do cover this. Even without this I definitely would rule it back to making.
Nov. 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It depends heavily on the partnership I am/was playing in. In no order of preference:

2 = Double negative
2N =

2 = To play opposite 20-21bal
2N = 3way bid (weak , weak minors, strong 55mm)

2 = Spades
2N =

2 = Spades
2N = Minors

2 = Spades
2N = Two suited
Nov. 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have played all of the above and some others as well.

Personally, my preference is to play shortage (or some variant) in these positions. I also dislike the 3/3N flip for several reasons:

1) I struggle to remember it
2) It is hard to exploit (e.g v suitable hands can pass NS 3N)
3) Additional system is needed for when serious isn't used (do we flip em back, do we play something else).
4) It has little advantage over standard and some deficits. It definitely is not a win-win convention.
Nov. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your priority should be shortage showing in my view. If I was playing the scheme I would follow something similar to Martens proposal of Stayman+Transfers.
Nov. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am in the X=T/O of camp too. X=Balanced is a very popular defence to M2 known as Dixon here in the UK. I think people like it as:

a) It fits with 1N-(2*)-X = Values
b) (2*)-X-(2M)-? = You can now treat this like 1N-(2M)-?.
c) Simplicity

From my experience though, it is far too fiddly for my liking hence the X=T/O route. This also fits in with the rest of my X of ART bids style which is nice.
Nov. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lot of probables, but I am tired.
Nov. 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As Michael I would bid 4 as 4 should be to play probably (or stronger/weaker) I would then make some sort of move over it as necessary.

On your auction I would bid 5 probably.
Nov. 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South should open
North should potentially open more than 1 (2/3/4)
North should bid more than 2
South should definitely bid on

Oh and what is 2 in 4th. If intermediate then isn't 2 here somewhat stronger thus, even more of a reason for South to bid on.

Seems like both N/S are equally to blame
Nov. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think shape showing has more merit than controls but to each their own.

When I was playing this style last year with someone who liked it he preferred 2 as the positive as this allowed for a more comprehensive Kokish style.

2-2 = Positive:

2 = Bal or
2N =
3 =
3+ = minors or 4441 shapes

The purpose was that partner can complete the minor transfer and then we can continue to show shape. E.g 4M-5m.

Over
2-2:
2 = bal GF or nat (there were followups)
2N = NF
3 = 4-5
Others = nat

Essentially if you are going down this route you should try and get the most out of your 2/2 bids in terms of making up for lost time. Thus for me, I would pack all the good hands into 2 since they are the slam-interested ones.
Nov. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Only 4? Partner must have solid 20count over there!
Oct. 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 could be as bad as xxx, QJTx, x, xxxxx for me :P

So where do I rank this hand (hmm).
Oct. 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As Simon.

Play 2 as Mild INV here and 2N as a more clearcut game-try. All bids higher than 2 are as per 1-2.
Oct. 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Definitely bidding. Partner has 6-5m or 7-4m and wants us to pass only if we have a penalty double of 4.

Bidding 5 as the info both sides give might help us judge 5 vs 6level better.
Oct. 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
in which case they have 5 and a FNJ. If partner doubles then they have even more dummy ruffing potential.
Oct. 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not convinced by the line of logic that defending 2x is right. RHO almost certainly has 6 and possibly a Fit Non Jump with which we cannot shorten sufficiently to take control fast enough. Hands like x, AKQTxx, xx, xxxx spring to mind where 2 x looks to be in rude health, no? We are basically gambling on the black suit breaks + partner not straining too hard it seems.
Oct. 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Floating between 3 and 3. Don't think 2N is right at all as LHO will lead stiff through partners possible Kx. Pass could be right but I feel 3N is too likely to be on the cards.

Hopefully 3 will show partner interest (they will put me on approx 6 + outside A) and then they can judge accurately whether 3N is good. The problem with this is we hold the A. This is a really bad card for our hand as it means partner cannot be sure whether Kxxxx, Ax, xxx, xxx is 9 tricks.

Tempted by 3 but the vuln and the fact that Niall is likely my partner makes me stray to the conservative action.
Oct. 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since I guessed/proposed the 4 two-way treatment, I should say that Andy is technically correct. However, I also think a sign-off is more important than a diamond slam-try full stop.

The hand we have picked up is among the most powerful “without shortage” hands that we can pick up and it is still borderline sign-off after 3N-4. This tells me that we definitely need a sign-off. If you do want the diamond slam-try then the two-way bid seems like a reasonable compromise.
Aug. 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
See my point above as to why I would long suit try in . Hopefully, partner will move with heart cards or heart length+other values which is probably our best shot.
Aug. 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Neither do I, since for me a mixed raise contains shortage. However, I think they both fall within the parameters specified. 4333 is apparently on the border
Aug. 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kxxx, xxxx, KQx, xx is a better example as you won't need to pick up .
Aug. 17, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top