Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Brett Kunin
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rule 1: you need a firm agreement as to what are your opening 4c/d requirements - with my partners, it is 8 or 8.5 tricks (9 reserved for a 2c opener), with a one-loser 7-card suit. Rule 2: I see no benefit in playing the system unless you can make both cue and asking bids.
Therefore, modifying slightly the system proposed by Max Hardy is his books (I am sure he adopted it from someone else): (1) bidding the anchor by partner is not only to play, but shows a tenace; otherwise, he/she relays, and allows the opener to play the hand; (2) a relay (e.g., 4c-4d-4h), followed by a bid, is a cue bid, always an ace; & (3)a direct bid beyond the anchor (e.g.,4c-5c) is an asking bid, with “step responses” – responses are:
(a) a direct bid of nt to show kx or kxx to protect it- nt can never be a step-response;
(b) first step (i.e., 5d in the example above), 2 or 3 dead;
© second step, singleton;
(d) 3rd step, 1st round control (i.e., Ace); and
(e) 4th step, absolute control (stiff A, void, or AK)
Sept. 9, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree, especially since at lower levels, people make takeout doubles “on air”, and why the xx card by partner, to show values, is not used with sufficient frequency. Nevertheless, I think the ACBL made a mistake many years ago when it eliminated the requirement that “power off-shape doubles” be alerted.
Sept. 9, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that 3h (showing a 5-loser hand) is sufficient for hand one. If on hand two you are playing mini-splinters, it is perfect–if partner does anything but re-bid his suit at the 3 level, slam exploration is warranted, and bidding space is conserved. As to hand 3, since partner could be 4-4-3-2, 3n is not out of the picture, and a 2s cue bid is warranted. On the last hand, a full splinter is warranted with all the outside tricks (and unless partner has ten 4th of spades and no A-c, it will usually make), but your spades are not good enough to do anything but insist on game.
Sept. 9, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
kudos - thank you for sharing.
Sept. 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Kit. How could any director rule that pass is not a logical alternative??????
Sept. 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
LOL - good one, John. Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of your Tournament Chair to advise the DIC of your policy, and insist that the directors follow it;
Otherwise, get another DIC.
Aug. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had to abstain in your poll, because systemically, my double of 1nt is penalty if the maximum upper range is 15.
Aug. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is not to disparage what Marlene does (she does a terrific job), and the 106 Board deserves great credit for all the help that is given at the sectional; nevertheless, let's be fair - the bagels 140 serves are baked THAT morning, so they are still warm when served @ 9:30; I also pick up fresh rye and pumpernickel breads for Sunday that are baked on Saturday. More important, note that your unit charges an additional $4.00 per person for the Sunday Swiss over what Unit 140 charges - I hope to convince our Board at the next meeting to allow us to raise the pricing, so we can do a little better (but you can't have it both ways).
Aug. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bob: In Unit 140 we sell “discounted pizza” in between sessions on Friday and Saturday, but there is no charge for the lunch on Sunday.
Aug. 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As Tournament Chair for Unit 140 (Central NJ), we do a bracketed Swiss on Sunday, 7x7 playthrough (with a 1/2 hr break for complimentary lunch), with any team that cares to being able to play the top Flight(and, hence, usually played as a Swiss), with Directors' discretion to bracket the remaining teams, based on point ranges. We serve a light breakfast, and start the game promptly @ 10:30 AM, so that we are done well before 6 pm.
Aug. 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since you never will be allowed to play in 2d (law of total tricks, opps will have almost always have at least an 8 card fit), there are those of us who play “same suit stayman”, and the 2d bid shows a weak hand with both majors (usually 5/5). I fyou have a hand with 5 diamonds, I just bid 3. I like to reserve the 2c bid for hand in which I really have clubs, which you otherwise cannot show.
Aug. 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dean: I didn't vote, because the way you used “probated” is a malapropism. As an attorney, I can assure you that the words “probate” and “probated” are used ONLY in conjunction with a will (as a dictionary will confirm). What I think you meant to write is “put on probation” – this is just another reason to edit any comment before you post it.
In any case, it is time to show some maturity – there is no room on a serious bridge site for an AD HOMINEM attack. If you used such language at a table during an event, you would be assessed a major penalty for a Zero Tolerance violation.
Aug. 15, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am in Bob's camp on this one – absent discussion, one cannot assume that partner will realize that 5d is an asking bid. I would bid 6 at mp's, and cue bid 4s at imps.
Aug. 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the Northeast, at most sectionals and regionals, the general rule is that in a bracketed Swiss, any team can opt to play in the top bracket. In all other cases, you are “relegated” to your “point bracket”. (I, personally, always want to be in top bracket, so that question is not relevant to me.)
A more interesting question is, e.g., in a bracketed KO at regional with 4-5 brackets, should a team that would normally be in bracket 3 or 4 opt to play in Bracket 2? This has the advantage, as Yehudit pointed out, of ceasing the “point lying” that now occurs. However, it has disadvantages, as it might force the directors to expand or contract a middle bracket(thereby defeating the purpose of bracketing by “skewing” the bracket), and would make bracketing by the directors at Gatlinburg virtually impossible. Quite frankly, perhaps some beta testing would be a better idea before implementing a hard and fast rule.
Aug. 11, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are several options, many of which are covered above, One methodology requires two hearts honors and a spade honor to open Flannery (which has merit). However, for a slam try, I prefer that 3d is “slammish”, and forces 3h. 3s is a slam try in spades, and 4m is a cue bid, and slammish with hearts.
Aug. 11, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not only a 5-loser hand, but the club void has to be an asset- with the heart finesse likely to “work”, game is virtually cold opposite Qxx,Kxx,xxx,xxxx. Hand is too good for a direct 2s. Only way to get to 4s is to double and bid the suit.
Aug. 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
See my comment above - I strongly agree with the second paragraph in Lynn's comment.
Aug. 6, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that the price paid, when many of my friends could have designed the site equally as well for 1/2 of the price or less, is exorbitant – money poorly spent. Although the search vehicle is improved (the old one was very poor, so that is not a compliment), that has nothing to do with topical re-design. I find the new site difficult to navigate, particularly when looking for a specialized item (e.g., finding the ACBL “standard” defenses to Multi). Perhaps I was used to the former topics, but I was always able, in the past, to “get to where I needed to go” relatively quickly – I have great difficulty doing so now (although I freely admit that this may be indicative of trying to teach an old dog new tricks).
Aug. 6, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I may be in the minority here, but I firmly believe in taking advantage of the interference. With all of my partnerships, I play:
3 of partner's major is a 1s-p-2s bid;
3c shows a limit raise or better in partner's suit;
3d is forcing to game,with at least 5 of other major; and
3 of the other major is to play.
Aug. 6, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree - therefore, it either shows BOTH majors, or a willingness to play partner's minor at the FOUR level (as partner could be “jumping” in the major you do not have).
Aug. 2, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top