Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 128 129 130 131
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or to use a metaphor, it may be the case that democracy dies in darkness, but in these days of LED bulbs, we expect light to be very cheap.
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To be frank, no one under a certain age subscribes to a *physical* newspaper. They may subscribe to an on-line newspaper, but I think most people who have multiple devices and multiple browsers per device never run into free article limits and ignore the publication (like WSJ and Washington Post) where those limits are too stringent.
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The title is wrong, too, then, since this is about transfers in competition, not specifically about advances.
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think it's theoretical that I'd rather partner limit his strength than tell me about his jack-sixth.
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I first encountered this idea in a context that is not technically 2/1. After 1-2 = 5+ hearts, 9+ points, the 2 and 2 rebids are both non-forcing. (2 promises at least two hearts. 2 would often be six spades but would be bid on five spades with 0-1 heart.) 5=2=3=3 15+-19 jumps to 3NT. 3 of any suit is natural and GF. And 2NT shows GF with 6+ spades with too poor a suit for 3.

In that context it was more to facilitate a strength distinction. In a context where one is trying to facilitate a length distinction, other methods might be preferable. In fact, I find that treating a poor six card suit as though it were a five-card suit at my first rebid works just fine, so I don't worry about it. I worry a lot more about being able to distinguish 12 from 18, so I have a lot of sympathy for rebidding 2M on weak NT hands and making 2NT natural and EXTRAS in 2/1.
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And to be clear, I would also not play a system where 1M-2m-2M promises 6.
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps asking people what they would tolerate might help. For example, I can tolerate responder's rebidding his minor being forcing or non-forcing, but I would never play a system where 2NT is opener's default rebid.
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I assume 2NT shows a mediocre or poor 6+ suit with extras (with 3M showing a good 6+ suit with extras and 2M being bid on all true minimums). That is why this 2NT bid rarely wrong-sides…if you have extras and a poor six-card suit, you have quite a few honors on the side to be led up to if you end up in notrump.
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To be completely consistent, make 2M the neutral rebid after a 2/1 over a major, and play weak NT so that 2 is the neutral rebid after 1-2. (2NT still natural there but promises extras.)
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also, if 2 is encompassing many of responder's balanced hands, it's probably best for all of opener's direct club raises to promise 5 clubs rather than 4. (And maybe to repurpose the 3 and 3 bids in that case.)
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I prefer 2M to 2NT as the default rebid since it's cheaper than 2NT and doesn't wrong-side anything, but why shouldn't step 1 be the default rebid?

After a 2 response, this works well with a transfer-oriented style. For example, after 1-2:
2 = default rebid
2 = 4+ spades, not necessarily extras
2 = 4+ club raise, not necessarily extras
2NT = natural, stoppers
3 = 5+ diamonds, extras
3 = 4+ club support, diamond shortness, extras
3 = 6+ hearts, extras, solid or semisolid suit
3 = 4+ club support, spade shortness, extras
3NT = 16-17 3532
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But not the worst. If partner is 4=3=3=3 you might end in a 3-3 fit. I'm curious whether you would rate double slightly higher if you reversed West's minors. In other words, do you suspect East is likelier to show clubs when he is 3-3 or 4-4 in the minors?
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Will King Kong tap trump (tower)?
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tokyo likes this comment.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was Thomas analyzing the value of honors in the hand responding to 2NT? If so, aces (and kings) are worth more in that hand than in a typical hand (because an entry is so valuable) and quacks less so.
Dec. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At BAM, I think I need more than “a good excuse” to invite with an 8 count with no four-card major and no five-card major. I need a really darn good excuse.
Dec. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Somehow I doubt +200 was halving the board!
Dec. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If we can't agree on which major to bid over 2, it's a pretty good indication we shouldn't have bid 2 on 4-4! Make the spades AK109 and I would find all this much more understandable.
Dec. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, I would not agree with “above average” if you changed the 9 to the 10. I might agree with “above average” if you changed the 2 to the 10.

I would definitely agree with above average if we further made the K into the K, and the 5 into the 6.
Dec. 2
Christopher Monsour edited this comment Dec. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Louis, I think the answer is that for suit play, aces are clearly undervalued, and queens and jacks are clearly overvalued. For notrump, I think the general consensus is that 4-3-2-1 is pretty close, with aces perhaps slightly undervalued, queens perhaps slightly overvalues, and tens undervalued.

It's not as simple as “there's your answer” though, since high cards tend to do better in combination. I look at this hand and like the two aces but don't like how spread out the honors are, so I think it's an average 16 count for notrump.

FWIW, I would accept the invite because I expect partner to have a heavy invite at BAM–otherwise he ought to be passing 1NT, especially as he has no major to search for.
Dec. 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 128 129 130 131
.

Bottom Home Top