Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Brian Callaghan
1 2 3 4 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The 12-hour events are usually scheduled to run from about 11am to 11pm. I agree it's practically impossible to fit same-day international travel around this.

It's easier to fit travel around the 24-hour event. (A slightly later start and finish would be better from this perspective.)
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's a case, but there's an admittedly unlikely layout where it would be seriously wrong. Declarer might have KQ doubleton in hearts (as well as a doubleton spade) and dummy three to the ten.
Nov. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The event ended at eleven. The organisers did not use the clocks going back as an excuse to torture the participants by making them play an extra hour.
Nov. 19
Brian Callaghan edited this comment Nov. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I admit I much prefer the 24-hour event.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That seems a very reasonable approach to me. If I were to agree a minimum point‑count for a response, I might pick up some hand, which I hadn’t considered in advance, on which, at the time, I judge my best action is to bid. Then I would have to choose between breaking my agreement or passing when I didn’t think it was in my best interests.

Sometimes a casual partner of mine will pass a hand that I would not have, with the comment that he or she had to because the hand did not contain some number of points. Usually I just roll my eyes and shake my head. But now I’ve tracked down a half‑remembered quote from Emerson that is bound to go down well: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”
Oct. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While I agree that it is logical for “forcing” and “forcing one round” to have distinct meanings, and that “forcing one round” should sensibly guarantee a rebid, I don’t think that is how most understand it. If I agree with a partner that some call is “forcing one round” there is a serious danger that the partnership does not actually have an agreement.

(I prefer “autoforcing” as a term for the caller guaranteeing one subsequent bid, but my suggestions on nomenclature tend not to be well‑received.)
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems to me that with QJx in particular, when the lead is from dummy to declarer, you should not play the Q.

Reason is you might play the Q from either Q10x or AQx. If you have Q10x, you definitely do not want partner to take the ace and tell declarer what the layout is.
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I play a passed hand 2 over 1 to show a 6‑card suit and a fairly wide point range. (More contentiously, I also do this over a third‑ or fourth‑seat 1 or 1 opening. It's more attractive when playing 4‑card majors.)
Sept. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My preference is to play × to show a spade suit and tolerance for hearts, so my 2 would say a return to hearts was unwelcome.
Sept. 3
Brian Callaghan edited this comment Sept. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted for “School”, but that might give the wrong impression. At my school, the pupils were forbidden from playing card games, with the exception of bridge. And only those in the sixth form (around ages 16–18) were allowed to play bridge. The prohibition had little practical effect, and my schoolfriends and I, aged about 14, took part in a regular lunchtime game of solo whist. I don’t remember why our game of choice was solo, but it was good grounding for bridge players because it involved taking tricks, and had rudimentary bidding which included the option of playing in a partnership.

In due course, we switched to the more interesting game of bridge, greatly aided by books on the subject in my father’s collection. I already knew about duplicate, because that is what my father played. (My mother didn’t play, so any bridge in the home didn't involve the whole family.) By the age of 16 or so, I and some of my friends were playing regularly in the local duplicate clubs.

By the time I went to university, I was already a relatively experienced duplicate player, but there I fell amongst better players and realised I wasn’t as experienced as I imagined. The rest is—perhaps I shouldn’t say history, because I’ve heard said that history is bunk—legend.
Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've known opponents who treated 4 as always Gerber, but none of them referred to it as Norman Blackwood. Sounds like a conflation of Norman and Blackwood, both 4NT asking bids. (I don't recall ever playing against anyone who used Norman, though.)
Aug. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've played 2 this way in one of my partnerships for quite a few years. (It's allowed in some EBUland competitions.) I think I picked up the idea from the Dutch. (It is or was fairly popular in the Netherlands.) I play after 2-2NT, that 3 shows a maximum and 3 a minimum, both with the weak diamond hand. The same treatments after 2-2 and 2-2 make some sense too. I'm afraid I've never gone into any systemic detail about what to do when holding the strong version.

One effect of playing it is that it makes it more attractive to use pass-1-2 as some sort of Drury, since a natural weak 2 by a passed hand is now rarely held. (The same is true if you play weak 2 openings, of course, but you can't do that and play a Multi 2.)

Another effect is that the opponents are much less likely to pre-empt you when you have the rare strong version, because they have to optimize against the common weak version, the popular wisdom being not to pre-empt against a weak bid. (So, I agree with Louis Dekker's comment, earlier.)
June 2
Brian Callaghan edited this comment June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's a very nice construction, David, and to drop the Q under the A as defender is certainly your best chance to get declarer to go wrong, but…

Suppose declarer now cashes a high trump from hand, crosses to dummy with a diamond, and after the A, tries the now-good J. You will have to follow with a low club, and declarer, if not on autopilot, may smell a rat and wonder at this Greek gift. He can change tack and ruff the club winner high, draw the last trump and rely on the diamond suit to break,
May 23
Brian Callaghan edited this comment May 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks to everyone who took the time to express their opinion. I guess it's back to the drawing board. Particular thanks to Steve Moese, who not only addressed my intended subject, bidding taxonomy, but put forward a user-friendly counter-proposal.
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or to put it another way, if you held a two-suited hand, the only way to show it using purely natural bids, is by two distinct one-suited bids.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A one-suited hand is not synonymous with a one-suited bid.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Natural suit bidding by definition delivers one suit at a time. I wouldn't think that classifying a natural suit bid as one-suited is particularly contentious (even if it's not what one might have previously thought of as one-suited). If a bid were classified as two-suited it couldn't be natural (because it does show a suit other than that of the bid) and if it were classified as half-suited it couldn't be natural (because it might show a suit other than that of the bid).
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The consistency I was aiming for was to be able to order some types of bid by how strictly specified what they show is. So the larger the number before -suited, the more strictly specified what a bid shows is. For example two-suited is more restrictive than one-suited, which in turn is more restrictive than half-suited (or half-one-suited). But it's not a tool for comparing one-suited and half-two-suited, which aren't the same thing.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A somewhat belated addition. Although I wouldn't expect any bid to show half a suit, I might expect a bid described as “half-suited” to be showing its (one) suit in a mixed state—for instance half-hearts and half-spades.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, if you adopt the terminology of using a fractional preface to say that there are alternatives, it's reasonable that the absence of a fractional preface should say there aren't alternatives. That's what I do.

Natural suit opening bids are prototypical “one-suited” bids, in which the suit bid coincides with the suit shown. (The opener might have another suit or suits, but they aren't shown by the opening bid.) Take three different natural openings—1, 1, and 2. Each of them would be classified as “one-suited” because each of them shows a specific one suit—the suit of the bid. But not all of them would be classified as “heart-one-suited” (or more simply “heart showing”), because not all of them show hearts.
May 17
1 2 3 4 5
.

Bottom Home Top