Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Umm, can you tell us your methods here? Otherwise you'll get a bunch of answers all assuming different methods that happen to be most familiar to each respondent.
Oct. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2, 2, 2NT, 3, and 3 are all possible. I like 2NT the least, though. At the table I'd go with either 2 (the suit I can most safely correct back to spades) or 3 (I'd rather call this a six-card suit than call a three-card spade holding four-card support).
Oct. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What do I vote for to indicate I object to the 2 call? If I can't call this better than a minimum when I know partner has at least four spades, I should go back to one-way Drury and get my natural 2 bid back!
Oct. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pass again
Oct. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does 1NT-2-2-3NT say “bid 4 if you have four spades”? Or does it just say “now that I know you have 4-5 hearts, we should play 3NT”? The latter certainly makes some logical sense, though it leads to pretty revealing auctions when you just wanted to find out about a four-card spade holding with a hand that didn't want to risk 2 getting doubled for the lead.
Oct. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This depends a bit on whether the opponents' auction guarantees an 8-card fit.
Assuming it does, I don't want to defend and I don't want to be in a six-card fit. Partner clearly has at least one 5+ card minor to go with his heart void and 3-4 spades. So I ask him to bid it. At worst, we'll be in a 5-2 club fit.
Oct. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You might trouble to notice that I actually referenced the ACBL. Please don't be intentionally obtuse.
Oct. 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That should have been posted as a separate problem. The real problem is interesting enough that many people who, like me, would never have considered responding 1NT will give straight answers.
Oct. 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suspect it may well be designed to give an unnamed player the impression that he (or she) is giving 2/1 a bad name!
Oct. 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't suppose you'd want to test Pass, 1NT, or 3 (assuming GiB could be told to take 3 as fit-showing) on those same hands? It would be a lot of work, since those bids would presumably show some of their gains from improving partner's opening lead decision.
Oct. 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And then there is the famous example of American football. Winning is highly positively correlated with kneel-down plays. Therefore, in order to win a game, run a kneel-down play at every opportunity….
Oct. 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I should add that this was in the days before 1NT opening ranges were announced. (At that point or shortly thereafter, they obviously got rid of the pre-alert requirement.)
Oct. 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When the ACBL used to mandate pre-alerting before each round if your NT ranges varied by seat or vulnerability, but didn't mandate pre-alerting any individual ranges, I used to withhold the pre-alert until after the hand, if any, where we first opened 1NT. Not having the pre-alert can only hurt them the *second* time we open 1NT. Otherwise, why waste the time?
Oct. 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When the 1NT and 1-1M-1NT ranges are the same and 1 promises 3 or more diamonds, I open 1 with 3=3=5=2, to allow partner to raise. I agree there is not a problem with missing a 4-4 major fit on that one specific shape (the other reason for typically opening 1 when I can).

The treatment is also helpful because responder only needs 5 clubs to bail out in 3 opposite 1NT (and thus no dilemma when responder is weak with 5-5 minors). Responder would of course bid 3 to play on some five-card suits anyway, but he can do so much more freely.
Oct. 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do question the clarity of the ACBL regulation on 4 and 4, by the way. For some players, the Namyats 4 and 4 openings take away more from the 1 and 1 (or even 2) openings than from the 4 and 4 openings, and many players don't lower the low end of the 4 and 4 requirements, but just make them narrower rather than weaker. On the literal reading of this regulation, such players are not required to alert 4 and 4, but can you imagine the storm that will be raised if you don't?

The ACBL should avoid creating traps like that when it writes up specific examples.
Oct. 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That has something to do with how surprising each is. When I play systems that don't include support doubles, and I raise on three-card support in competition, my opponents invariably complain that my partner didn't alert my raise! I have to remind them that raising on three isn't alertable, at least not yet!
Oct. 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would think we'd want real-life cheats using their real names on BBO. That way, if they are caught cheating on BBO, their national organization can increase the length of their suspension.
Oct. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that number is based on ALL *BBO* masterpoints, not only those the ACBL recognizes as ACBL madterpoints.
Oct. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And with fourteen cards, I'll bid a level higher. :)
Oct. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting discussion. Any thoughts about what Precision players whose 1 and 1NT ranges are co-extensive should do to draw their opponents' attention to the fact that, while 1NT does not specifically promise a third club, holding only two clubs would be, as they say, damn rare?
Oct. 3, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top