Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Anthony Pettengell
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In response to an opening bid this may well be a mixed raise without one of the kings. In response to my (admittedly light) 1M overcalls… 3 will do me. I also agree with Jay below, I want to show the 4th trump in this auction so 2 is out for me.
June 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The results so far are broadly what I expected, i.e. a health mixture between 2 and 3. I chose 2 at the table, having considered both, but I'm still not sure which I prefer.
May 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree and would bid 2 myself, but it's a matter of agreement as to how strong a balancing jump overcall is, and I'm perfectly happy with the proposition that this isn't it too.
May 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From your/South's perspective Frances - I believe they were referring to North's perspective.

I agree with a number of others that a) the lead of a low card indicates declarer has run out of hearts and leading the highest suggests he has another heart remaining; and that b) this should have no bearing on North's decision to ruff here.
May 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you all for the reassurance. I opened this 1 without thought, but it was suggested this might be worth a 1N opening. I disagree, though didn't trust my judgement. Throw in a black jack and I might well upgrade (because of the AKQxx suit).
May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I concur, low frequency but typically excellent results when it does arise.

I like playing split range, weak or strong (5–10 OR 17/18+, or whatever ranges you choose). The strong hands are even lower frequency but it doesn't hurt to put them in there and strong hands with both minors can be awkward to bid otherwise.
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This (with 2NT = inv+ raise) is the ‘default’ that I play. Transfers are certainly workable too, as I'm sure are many other systemic treatments.

What I definitely want is separate ways to compete to 3 and show an invite, and I want to show the fit immediately - which is why I'm not a fan of basic lebensohl-esque sequences here.
May 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Without agreements to do otherwise I open 1 in a standard structure and rebid 2 over a 1 response. With agreements rebidding 1N is fine, as is opening 1 and rebidding 2. They all have advantages and disadvantages.

In a Polish Club or Precision context it's often systemic to open 1 and rebid 2 with these hands. Problems are relatively rare.

In Polish you can also play 1 - 1M - 1N as showing exactly 1 card in partner's major if you so wish. 1 as an opening can be wholly unbalanced, as a NT range is not required. This 1NT rebid effectively shows a 1444, 1345 or 1453 hand after 1, and a 4144 or 3145 hand after 1. This does mean opening 5332 hands with 5 diamonds 1, which isn't to some people's taste, but I quite like it. You have to do the same with with 5332 hands with 5 clubs already anyway (1 saying nothing about clubs).
April 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even if 1 showed 4+ clubs, it can be hardly be said that 1 denies club support of any kind. I don't think the length of 1 is relevant so long as it is natural to some extent. 1 says nothing about clubs regardless, and 2 confirms a real suit.

I agree that 2 should deny support unless strong. How strong? Probably a GF (/to 4m if that's your thing), because although 2 is typically inv+, invitational hands with club support should just raise 2 to 3 (as Jeff says above). If it were hearts, I would not be so certain… invitational 5=4=1=3 hands would want to show their heart suit as a priority over raising clubs.

So I would choose this 3 as forcing, and the equivalent 1-1-2-2-2NT-3 to be forcing too, out of simplicity and symmetry, but could be convinced otherwise.
Feb. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I endeavoured to make it very clear that I was looking forward to the magazine and that content was what it should be judged on. If that wasn't clear, or if my tone came across as being negative towards those producing this new content, then I sincerely apologise.

That being a given, I don't see the problem with constructive feedback on what is almost certainly an evolving website - surely it can only help?

In terms of registering with a password, it may be there will be other features other than simply an email newsletter, in which case I think making this clear would improve the site. Similarly I think unifying fonts, when those involved have the time/resources to do so, would improve the site. These are of course simply opinions, but I hope they were politely and constructively expressed. Again, if you misunderstood or had a different impression, then I apologise.
Dec. 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Having to make a website account simply to get an email newsletter is certainly not unknown but not what I'd call normal - but in any event, even if you consider it normal, it is certainly unnecessary!

I hesitate to criticise the format of what is no doubt a low- (near nil-?) budget website - any new bridge content is to be appreciated, and for the content itself - but is there any chance the font used for normal paragraph text could be unified across the different pages? The variation is really jarring, particularly with the mix of serif and sans serif fonts.

Anyway, I look forward to the magazine itself!
Dec. 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is 2N natural or a heart raise? How good is your minimum heart suit for a vulnerable 2 overcall?
Dec. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think my answer depends on scoring, which we haven't been given. At MPs I think no real blame; West could have made a move, but moving past 3N to seek an uncertain club slam isn't clear to me (though maybe it should be?). At IMPs I think blame clearly belongs with West, who should make a move. In no way can I see East being to blame, with that shape and heart holding.
Dec. 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted then went to the other poll, which I hadn't seen before - I agree exactly with your comment there Richard. That diamond suit just makes it worth the 2NT stretch in my opinion, but it's close (Qx in hearts isn't great, and Kx spades is a single stopper which can't be held up), and pass may well still be the best option.
Nov. 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is interesting. I'm used to having the difference be signalling, so opener can ask for attitude or count by choosing between A or K, and I'd hesitate to give that up.

How was your experience of the quasi-count leads Steve, and was it worth it vs a different AK distinction?
Nov. 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would only rebid 1 with an 18+ balanced hand if the hand had 5 spades, and I'm happy with that systemic treatment, but thank you for the suggestion. I agree with the 1 rebid rather than 2N or 2 when opener does have 5 spades.

Incidentally, 99% of the time the 18+ will be 18-20 or 13+ as per Brian, and probably ought to have been described as such systemically. I left it open as I wonder whether certain 21-23 hands short in hearts would decline to open 2 but then decide a 2N rebid is best after a heart response… but this probably shouldn't be part of the systemic description. I haven't discussed this with partner and it hasn't come up yet, so there's no unspoken partnership agreement on that point that needs to be disclosed.

As per my other reply below, what is responder's 3 here to you Brian?
Nov. 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Having thought about it more subsequent to comments, the argument for all natural makes sense.

My initial thought was there still needed to be a way to find a 4-4 spade fit where responder had 4 cards in each major, but the uninterrupted sequence 1-1-2NT-3 doesn't need to promise 5+ hearts as opener has denied interest in a 5-3 heart fit. The one downside I can see to this is it wrong-sides spade contracts, which with a Checkback variant would be played by the strong balanced hand.

Given natural continuations, is that what people would suggest? What suit lengths should 3, 3 and 3 by responder show respectively? What are people's suggested continuations (other than the obvious game bids)?

If not, how would you deal with the responder hands with 4 cards in each major?
Nov. 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Exactly as Brian describes. We use standard Odwrotka at the moment, but acknowledge that some 3-card heart suits don't want to be locked into the major if partner were to show a 5-card suit with the Odwrotka answer, hence 2NT could technically include 3 cards in responder's major.
Nov. 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What are your agreements about the double? I have voted on the assumption that you have defined the double as takeout, despite the level, because it seems a clear pass to me otherwise.
Nov. 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed. Conversely, I'll quite happily double 2 for takeout later if that's what comes back to me after having overcalled.
Oct. 25, 2017
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
.

Bottom Home Top