Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Bill Segraves
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 31 32 33 34
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is there a hand that could plausibly pass after (1) 1 (1) X (P) if X is a Rosenkranz or Reverse Rosenkranz double promising 3 card support and 1 showed at least five?
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I make frequent use of the Cohen polls (they do a great job of addressing treatments that aren't addressed on a cc), but the Cohen 2/1 BW standard isn't actually drawn up into a full card (at least not that I can find - please point me to it if it's online and I'm not finding it. Maybe it's only in his print booklet?). Unless there's more somewhere else, translating BWS into a full card would be easier than generating the rest of what the polls don't cover.

Do you mean “why don't people use it?” or “why doesn't the ACBL create and offer something like it as a standard convention card for people who don't have their own CC at events that actually enforce the requirement?”

If you mean the former, they're just not that interested (not that there's really enough “it” to use as a convention card). I could count on one hand the number of people I've run into live and online who were prepared to play BWS when that was suggested, and even fewer know what's in the Cohen BW polls. I don't think I've ever seen but one or two people taking advantage of the “bbo advanced” convention card.

If you mean the latter, fine, but IMO, the fewer conventions the better. People who are required to play a default card (or one from among a set of choices of default cards) need to be able to determine pretty quickly what's actually on it.
5 hours ago
Bill Segraves edited this comment 3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is not a rhetorical question: in what way are they “seemingly so resistant”? Is it clear there's a demand and that they're not acceding to it?

SAYC and the accompanying booklet were created in anticipation of SAYC's use in single-system tournaments. There wasn't a demand for those tournaments but the convention card has hung around, loved by few (too few, IMO - it's not a bad card), fully understood by fewer, but close enough to an approximation of what a lot people play that you'll see more people listing “SAYC” on bbo than anything else.

The ACBL could endorse some other standard card, whether 2/1 or not, but I'm not sure it would have that much impact. Lots of people play standardish 5 card majors but don't pay much attention to what's on the SAYC card (even if they say they play SAYC) and lots of people play 2/1 without paying any attention to Bridge World Standard, for instance.

I think there'd be something to be said for creating an updated/enhanced “standard” that included just a few more key conventions and treatments, and/or for creating/endorsing something along the lines of a Bridge World Standardish 2/1 card, but “scrapping” in favor of 2/1? I'm not seeing the point.
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So, what's your preferred method?
8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't that in a weak notrump system?
11 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I don't even know how it is playable.”

Given that BWS has it forcing, I'm surprised at the number of votes for NF. But in Washington Standard, e.g., 2NT NF is playable because good hands use other minor artificially for good hands. And almost surely it's playable to use natural or quasi-natural bids to accomplish the same thing. At the risk of procedural penalty for answering my own question, what I *wouldn't* want to have to would be to jump to 3NT.
12 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lol. I hadn't thought about *that* possibility!
14 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“4C is ‘torture your partner’”

Contestant #1 wins the prize! 4 was of course the bid my pard made. Fortunately, I was able to endplay him into making the final decision on the contract.

It being “torture your partner” night, he also got you (and me) with 4NT. Fortunately, righty bid 5, I passed (DEPO?) and pard bid 5NT, so intent was now clear.
15 hours ago
Bill Segraves edited this comment 15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For those who are answering that both 4NT and 4 are for minor suit takeout, how do they differ?
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And 3?
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have thought that 2© applies to responder, not advancer, but I did have a 1M advance in mind.
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I don't know whether double is a balanced hand or opener's best suit, I'm not confident I'm going to know when to leave it and when to pull (to 3NT or a suit).
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am inclined to believe that meeting 2(k) suffices, but an example of a case not covered by 2(a) through 2(j) is a minimum advance of a takeout double that may sometimes be made on a 3-bagger.
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see from the votes that there are some for penalties by opener and takeout by responder. This I don't really get. It seems at least somewhat redundant (opener could double for penalties or convert the takeout double for penalties) without any great compensatory gain. Thoughts from those who voted that way?
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 was of course a psych (it was pretty obvious in my seat from the outset). If we had already had either agreements #2 or #3 yesterday, the opps would have gone for 1400 (nowhere to run). Sadly, pard wasn't sure what our (previously undiscussed) second round doubles would show and settled for a mundane 660.
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about strong 2 (to avoid having to show this at the 3-level and losing 2nd negative when playing Birthright), 10-ish weak 2 (not wanting to pass) and Multi for the traditional “intermediate” in the majors? Too much cost for the ambiguity of not knowing which major after 2?
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure I'm seeing the difference between a negative double and a responsive double in terms of whether they're showing or seeking a fit. Especially at low levels, aren't both of them showing certain shapes in the unbids (e.g., a negative double of 1 or a responsive double by advancer after an overcall and responder's raise of opener's suit) and seeking a fit in the suits shown?
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I did. Before I posted. 1 is less than 2. 13 minus (1 plus 3) = 9. The opps did bid to the 3 level. Unless someone psyched, I expect they will have 9 more often than the 8 that is also possible with your math.
Feb. 15
Bill Segraves edited this comment Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unless you can present more of an argument, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Even if we add balanced opposite shortness as a situation and say that #2 is the winner for it, that only brings it into a tie with #3 for # of situations and IMO it's questionable whether that's likely to get us a good result. The opps will generally be in something like a 9 card fit. Especially at these colors, doubling them isn't often going to pay off when they're in that 9 card fit.
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks to all who replied. After considering the responses, I'm thinking the following. There are four basic approaches:

1) both X penalties
2) both X takeout
3) opener X balanced, responder X takeout
4) both X balanced

There are also four basic situtions:

a) both hands balanced: good for #3 or #4
b) opener has a stack: good for #1 or #3
c) responder has a stack: good for #1 or #2
d) neither has much: good for #2 or #3

#3 wins on the most situations. Are there other pairs of methods or situations I should be taking into account?
Feb. 15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 31 32 33 34
.

Bottom Home Top