Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 49 50 51 52
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jordan:

You are correct - we should probably assign another meaning to this bid when the Z bid is 1NT. It shows a balanced strong NT over any 1x-1y-1z even when the Z bid is 1 or 1. There is no need for it when the Z bid is 1NT, as responder can just bid 3NT over 1NT.

However, in my other partnership, the 1NT rebid shows 14-17 when we are not vul (10-13 1NT openings nonvul) so the delayed 3NT can be invitational opposite a maximum 1NT rebid.

EDIT: When the 2NT-3NT sequence is used after opener's 1NT rebid, it shows a quantitative invite to 6NT. When the 2NT-3NT sequence is used after opener's 1M rebid, it shows a balanced strong NT.
Oct. 16
Art Korth edited this comment 19 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don: Why would you jump 2 levels to bid KC in diamonds? Establish a game force first. The double jump is exclusion for the last bid suit by my agreements.

Craig: No doubt that it may be a problem on some hands. But the South hand (IMO) is just too strong to open with a one bid (although I see that others are taking that route). On this hand, fortunately, there is no problem with the control response.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unless I am mistaken, the NABCs are run by the ACBL, and Bermuda is part of the ACBL. The NABCs are not, strictly speaking, a Zonal championship.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
US, Canada, Mexico and Bermuda, correct?

The question is whether Bermuda is a country. Whether it is or is not its own country, it is not part of the other three, so there is a fourth country involved.
Oct. 16
Art Korth edited this comment Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is easy with South as dealer playing with my current partner, as we play control showing responses to 2 openings.

So:

2 - 3 (5+ controls - slam force)
3 - 4
5 - 6*
7

*At this point, South knows that 7 is likely to be cold (barring an opening ruff), as North must have the K, AK, K and club length. The only question would be whether to bid 7NT instead of 7. That may not be possible to solve.

With North as dealer, this may be more difficult.

1 - 1
2 - 4 (by agreement - exclusion RKCB - even in opener's suit)
4 - 4NT (Kings?)
5 - 7

The 2 rebid is far from clear, but it makes South's job easy with the agreement that 4 is exclusion RKCB. Of course, the A would have worked as well as the K, so another sequence might accomplish the same result. The key is to get clubs to be the agreed suit at a level that allows control asks.
Oct. 16
Art Korth edited this comment Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like your line better. Unless I am mistaken, it only fails if spades are 5-1. Both lines require RHO to hold at least 2 hearts.
Oct. 16
Art Korth edited this comment Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@John: True, but it wouldn't be Treadwell.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Buddy: See my comment above about “Ethnic” Fishbein.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You made a simple overcall of 2 with 8 tricks in hand?
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That depends on whether “stupid” is an adjective or a noun.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that the comma in “Minors, stupid” makes your reading somewhat strained.

Sort of like the saying on a popular T-Shirt:

Let's eat Grandma!

Let's eat, Grandma!

Commas save lives.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What hand would overcall 2 and then, opposite a silent partner, bid 3NT to play?

(By the way, I find the choice of “penalty” to be fascinating. It sounds like an old Dave Treadwell joke: “We play (Ethnic) Fishbein - Double is for takeout, and the next higher bid is for penalties.” You can insert the Ethnic group of your choice for the word “Ethnic”. Of course, I would never be so crass as to make an Ethnic joke….)
Oct. 13
Art Korth edited this comment Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Presuming the director was right just because the director was there would mean your article was not needed.”

I would not go that far. It is still an unusual situation worthy of some discussion.
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So your analysis of the situation is that the director, who discussed the situation with the opening bidder away from the table in private, and was the only person who got the information first hand from the person who pulled the 2 card from the bidding box, was wrong to conclude that the 2 bid was not a mechanical error.

John, with all due respect, you are arriving at a conclusion which is contrary to the facts found by the director.
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I will try this again, despite the fact that I have stated it several times in this thread. If the opener had intended to bid 3 but pulled the 2 card from the bidding box by mistake, the TD would have ruled that there was a mechanical error and allowed a substitution of a 3 call without penalty. This would have ended the discussion.

But the TD, after speaking with the opening bidder away from the table, apparently determined that the 2 call was NOT a mechanical error. So, it was not a mistake in pulling the wrong card out of the bidding box. Rather, the opening bidder intended to pull out the 2 card. The TD can no longer permit a substitution of a 3 call without penalty.
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A comment about the possibility of a mechanical error.

While I was not informed of the substance of the TD's discussion with the opening bidder, it is reasonable to assume that the TD would have asked the opening bidder if he intended to bid 3 and pulled out the 2 call by accident. That would have ended the matter right away. The fact that the TD did NOT allow a 3 call to be substituted for the 2 call is evidence that the call was NOT a mechanical error, in the opinion of the TD.

EDIT: I note that I made this comment much earlier in this thread. Nevertheless, many posters continue to state that the 3 call should have been allowed since it is clear that the 2 call was a mechanical error.
Oct. 10
Art Korth edited this comment Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I might have had an issue if opener bid 3 over the second 2NT bid intending to show a singleton. How can the 2NT bid over 2 be treated as Jacoby? Has this pair discussed this sequence?

We are getting into very deep waters here.
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was wondering about that myself, Ed. We must have received the same warning message before posting.
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Looking back, the whole thing is humorous. But it was not that humorous at the time.

In my position, I call the TD to make sure that everything is done according to Hoyle. I am not trying to gain any advantage. But, at the same time, I did not create the problem. If the opponents are not entitled to use information conveyed by breaches in procedure it is the TD who has to prevent them from doing so.

I don't believe that the TD could allow responder's second 2NT bid to be treated as Jacoby, as the responder apparently intended. What opener's 4 bid means is totally unclear. If they had bid slam after this series of bids (calling it an auction seems wrong) my side might be entitled to some redress.
Oct. 9
Art Korth edited this comment Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After the auction, not during the auction.
Oct. 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 49 50 51 52
.

Bottom Home Top