Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Brian Callaghan
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And the same applies to any whole number greater than one. “two-suited”, “three-suited”, and even “four-suited”, all specify their suits.
May 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If there is a specified suit, it is specified. Any “one-suited” bid (in my interpretation) specifies the suit.
May 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let me be more explicit about my answer to your question “What's wrong with using ‘one-suited’ to mean ‘a single suit (and I’m not going to say whether that suit is defined or not)?'”

If you don't say that the one suit is defined then it means “either clubs, or diamonds, or hearts, or spades”. My proposal uses the term “quarter-suited” to mean that. (The fraction says that there are alternatives and the denominator says how many alternatives there are.) So “one-suited” under my prososal should mean “one specified suit and no alternatives”, and not “any one suit”.
May 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So in the example I gave earlier, a Michaels 2 overcall of an opening 1 is “one-and-a-half-suited” in contrast to a Michaels 2 overcall of an opening 1 which is “two-suited”.
May 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm using “two-suited” to mean a bid that shows two specific suits, and “one-suited” to mean a bid that shows one specific suit. That may differ from casual use.
May 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, I did say not to try and use arithmetic. “one of four two-suiters” would be “quarter-two-suited” (not equal to “half-suited”). I'll admit to that being a somewhat barbarous construction.
May 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm quite happy to use the unqualified terms “two-suited” and “one-suited” to talk about what kind of a bid a bid is, as opposed to describing what a particular bid shows to the opponents. The use of those terms aren't problems in need of a solution. I would be correspondingly happy to use a similar unqualified term to describe the kind of bid that shows either one suit or another. But I don't believe such a term exists, so a neoligism, illiterate or otherwise, would be useful. Maybe you have a literate term up your sleeve that you might reveal?

As to the “half”, it's not there to suggest that you are actually showing half a suit on any given hand. It's much like the average UK family was typically supposed to contain 2.4 children, without claiming that any particular family did. Suits come in whole numbers, but on average (approximately) each suit that a Multi (for instance) might show occurs half the time.
May 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, thanks, that's an interesting idea. It gets at the notion of a suit being not fully promised at the time a bid is made.
May 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. Or blacks/pointeds/roundeds. But sometimes the two suits are not completely known—for instance a 2 Michaels overcall of a 1 opening shows spades and a minor. (That would be a one-and-a-half-suiter.)
May 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What I am looking for is not an abbreviation, but a short way of describing the kind of bid. (Perhaps it was a mistake to give specific examples, because people have concentrated on those rather than the more abstract.)

We are happy to use “two-suited” instead of the phrase “both of two known suits”. I'm looking for something similar instead of the phrase “one of two known suits”. “Half-suited” is my attempt. I don't know if anyone else has their own idea.
May 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whether “one of two known suits” might usefully be shortened depends on the context. If one is describing the meaning of a bid to opponents, then the long form is perfectly reasonable, and I wouldn't dream of using my own term unless I was sure it would be understood. If one is writing some notes about bidding, then one might have grown weary of the long phrase after the fourth or fifth repetition.

And while each of the hand types is a specific single-suiter, the bid does not guarantee any specific suit. The (strange) fractional description is a shorthand way of emphasizing that.
May 16, 2017
Brian Callaghan edited this comment May 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK. But I was giving 2 as a specific instance of a type of bid. So, both a Multi 2 overcall of a 1NT opening, and a 2NT response to a 1NT opening in the EBU's Standard English (to sign off in a minor) would be half-suiters.
May 16, 2017
Brian Callaghan edited this comment May 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the sympathy. Looks like I might have to content myself with only using the term in my own system notes.
May 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. That was the general tenor of comments I got. But I'm not sure that any bid should be expected to show half a suit,
May 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree about disclosure, and about ‘hearts or spades’ being short enough. What I'm really trying to get at is how one might describe a bid in an article (say). So ‘major half-suiter’ would be identical with (and no shorter than) ‘hearts or spades’. But half-suiter on its own is a more general idea.
May 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play system on, but redouble as a ‘transfer’ to 2. (When playing Stayman, it is the say of signing off at the two‑level in a minor, plus whatever else reasonable that can be added. I'm not convinced of the utility of redouble as business.)
May 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, Oliver peered at me a trifle uncertainly before asking, “Are you Brian Callaghan?” He was too polite to mention any deterioration there might have been from the way I looked in my prime.
April 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Andrew Robson was not the sole author of “Partnership Bidding at Bridge”—the book was co‑authored by Oliver Segal. Oliver has recently reappeared on the London duplicate bridge scene.
(Oliver even recognized me after a gap of some decades.)
April 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
*I think what Andy proposes is a pass/correct double, in which case the opponents don't have to worry about a well‑prepared opening side.
April 27, 2017
Brian Callaghan edited this comment April 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Meanwhile, at the other table our teammates avoided the pitfall of responding 1, and tried 2 without any of the digression that occurred at our table. West doubled and East bid a mere 3. When South went on to 3, East let that play. That looks like a very pessimistic action to me, but perhaps that's just hindsight. That was a nonvulnerable game swing to us.
April 22, 2017
Brian Callaghan edited this comment April 22, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top