Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Brett Kunin
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nick: Haven't seen you in a while - hope you are well. I am not certain that I agree as to your proposed ruling in this matter, if you were directing. In a tournament, if I held x,Axxxx,xxxx,xxx, whether or not I was playing transfer McCabe, why not make a bid to show spades (since I was always bidding 5d)?
At the club, I would never “psych” against a B or C pair (just too mean-spirited, as they may not have the tools to combat it). Nevertheless, one is permitted to “screw up” an
agreement. To me, West had a clear cut double (values, spades, and no clear action) – 3n, when partner could be balancing on less than an opening hand, is just too unilateral (therefore, Keiran, I respectfully disagree). Also note, that if the N/S aces were reverses, game is no longer a “lock”.
My inclination would be to let the 3n contract, down some number of tricks, stand, and assess a procedural penalty (1/4 to 1/2 board, depending on the usual penalty at the club) vs. N/S. (A “top-flight A pair” should know their agreements.)
Dec. 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I just don't understand the penchant for so many respondants to this poll to bid 6d - it puts all your eggs in one basket. One can never know what will happen at the other table. If your counterparts bash to 6d, you could win several imps by accepting partner's judgment. The goal at imps is to go plus. There are many possible results on hands with such huge distribution.
Dec. 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yuan: After you showed a hand with tremendous offensive potential by bidding 4n (a bid that “puts partner in the equation” in a high level decision), I really think you should have respected his decision, as he can't be doing this without either AQ or KJx of spades behind the bidder and an outside card. Even though you probably make 5d, it is still better to go plus.
Dec. 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Len: Although I think you need to distinguish between imps and mp's (ducking at imps is generally IMPERATIVE in these situations), the more important caveat is that you must duck smoothly – too many people “give the show away”. I just think that most players have been so indoctrinated about “never giving a trick away” and “cashing out”, that they miss the forest for the trees. Correct defensive play will usually gain, much more than it loses.
Dec. 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I try to get my partners to use the same system I use over a double of a weak NT – i.e., Modified Guaba Rescue. This systems can show one-suiters, touching suits and non-touching suits, as well as weak 2-suiters.
Dec. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Len: I rated this as an average 16, since
if partner doesn't have a 4-card major, I would MUCH rather have a 3rd d. That being said, without a 4-card major, partner must have either 9 HCP, or 8 with a 5-card suit; therefore, bidding the game is mandatory. (We arrive at the same place, but with slightly different reasoning).
Dec. 2, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I didn't think I could vote in your poll, since in the USA, the trend is somewhat different. Most “advanced” players play a system called Unusual v. Unusual. As a result, x is penalty oriented (i.e, stack in at least one suit)- with the 2 cue bids showing a L/R+ in d's or a forcing call with clubs, 2n invitational, 3c/3d to play.
Dec. 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don: We already know that the STaC's have had a severely adverse effect on unit Sectional tournaments. We actually had one sectional in D#3 opposite the last day of the REACH tournament(a small sectional in Latham, NY, in the Finger-Lake region). I called the Tournament Chair, and he advised that although he was down a few tables on the Friday that competed with REACH, he felt that it had no adverse effect on attendance.
All in all, I believe the first step was a good one –let's see what happens in the future. My conversations with those who participated was that due to the size of the field, it would have been difficult to earn any gold other than a “section top”, in any event.
Nov. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems to me that it depends on how high the partnership has agreed to play Responsive x's. Since in most of my partnership, Responsives are limited to 4d or 4h, 4n would be at least 9 cards in the minors, values, and heart tolerance (say Qx), and x penalty oriented.
Nov. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don: There has been no rush in implementing the program. Only Districts that “opted in” participated in the initial trial.
Your skepticism not withstanding, this is a new administration, and you should give the program a chance, and NOT be basing your conclusion of a scenario of doom until you give the current administration the opportunity to prove itself.
Nov. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Probably the only time I would open 2n with the aforesaid distribution is when I am Kx in one of the majors, and specifically 2-2-5-4. (If I were 2-2-4-5, I have a convenient reverse.)
Nov. 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This issue can be easily resolved – by playing Minorwood (i.e., 4 OF THE SAME MINOR), key-card asks stay @ 4nt or below
Nov. 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suggested to Bihar, when he proposed his new “Big Ideas', that retaining membership, when the media age of ACBL members is WELL OVER 72 Y.O., is reasonable, but not essential. We need to focus on introducing younger players to bridge. Bihar seems to think that trying to get college players ”into the mix“ is essential – I disagree. If they haven't gotten the ”Bridge Bug" long before then, I believe, with the multitude of interests out there, and the length of time it takes to become a competent bridge player, it is WAY TOO LATE. Our Unit (140, Central NJ) has been focusing its teaching efforts at the elementary and middle school level. However, to think that we actually have the opportunity to make Bridge part of the curriculum
(stressed by Bihar), with all the demands on students and limited school district resources, is a mistake. We have teaching programs in 5 school districts and 10 schools, all successful AFTER-SCHOOL programs; this is where the future lies, and to prevent the game from denying in the U.S.

I also think that the REACH program has potential, in building up the clubs. Jeff Bayonne, owner of Honors Bridge Club in NYC, has advised that 150 people of the 1800 who signed up for REACH were in NYC, and that the large clubs in NYC sold out as a result. Although the effect on the NJ sections (northern and central) of District 3 were negiglible, I think that it has great potential as a successful program, at least in affluent urban or retirement areas, provided that care is taken not to discourage local Regional attendance.
Nov. 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not my favorite auction. If the 2s o/c'er had passed, a 4d bid is in order. I see no reason to bid anything else.
Nov. 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dave: Agreed. With a minor opening, that is why I always play that 4n is quantitative, and 4 of the minor is RKC, and why my comment above was limited to RKC in a major.
Nov. 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg: I abstained from your answering your poll, in the absence of knowing your methods. If double again is STRICTLY take-out, then I would NOT double again, as I can envision going down in 5d, if partner has neither rounded suit K, which is more than possible. With most of my partnerships, a second double would show 2 places to play; I don't think my heart suit is good enough to offer a second place to play (Jxxxx of hearts is not good enough from partner unless he/she holds the K-C). In addition, if the 4s spade bidder has the K-c, 4s may come in (particularly if the 4s bidder has l/r values with long trumps). Finally, to confirm what I already thought, I ran a BOLS simulation, which shows that partner holds 3+ diamonds more than 62% of the time. I would just bid 5d, and hope for the best. If partner has both rounded suit kings, he may bid a makeable 6. Preempts always due their dirty work…
Nov. 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When RKC was first postulated, 0314 was the norm. I believe that most professionals prefer 1430, since the the most common responses are 1 and 2; when one, this leaves room below 6 to make a q-ask in a major.
Nov. 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gabor: Sort of strange treatment – for most of our partnerships, 2s is a 3-suit take-out. 2n shows 2 places to play.
Nov. 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting, Len. Most people do the opposite: Make aggressive G/T's at imps, but NON-AGGRESSIVE acceptances. I have never played with a partner adopting the other style.. (not that it is wrong) Also, as you might suspect I would say, aggressive G/T's (after a fit), should be done, at imps, with good quality 6-loser hands.
Nov. 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With 10 minor suit cards, I would have always opened 3d with this hand. I see no reason to make it easy for the opps.
Nov. 20, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top