Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bill, if Blackwood had been invented as a form of audit Gerber (I'm not saying it was), would that have anything to do with how most people use it today?
Sept. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Moved
Sept. 25, 2016
Christopher Monsour edited this comment Sept. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, I do not consider “occasional” and “habitual” to be synonyms, so I don't recognize your comment as a response to mine, though it appears you confusingly intended it as such.
Sept. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because Drury isn't psych-exposing. The weak response to Drury simply shows a hand that doesn't want to be in game opposite a maximum pass that couldn't make a fit-jump. It would be a very poor bet to wager that I had psyched when I made the weak rebid. Keep in mind that many players who use Drury also open 4-card majors in 3rd and 4th seat. Consider a hand like KQJx QJx Kxx xxx. 1 is no psych, but there's no way in hell you want to be in game opposite a passed hand that can't make a fit-jump in red suit (and probably not even opposite one that can).

The other reason to use Drury is that you get to show a limit raise and still stop in 2 when partner doesn't accept. The goal isn't to expose a psych–it's to take advantage of a natural 2 response being of limited utility by a passed hand. If Drury were psych-exposing, please explain why it is played (a) in response to 4th seat openings and (b) by people who never psych.
Sept. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, I don't see what the relevance of Michael's comment is to my reply to your comment. He was describing a system in which he requires a sound 13 to open in 3rd seat. I was describing a system in which many 13s are passed but many 10s are opened. Gratuitously indicating either “light” or “sound” on the convention card as a description of my third seat openings would be misleading. If someone asks for more detail, I tell them. I was describing what I indicate on the convention card. You are clear on the difference between the English words “write” and “tell”, yes?

What's frustrating is that I fill out convention cards far more carefully than most of my opponents, and the reward I get for my trouble is they get misinterpreted by fools like you who can't read.
Sept. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for posting.

Out of curiosity, what are your ranges for the 1m, 1, 1NT, and 2m openings? Also, is 2M and higher really only 1%, or did you not check whether fert-range hands would have preempted?
Sept. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I'm not playing a strong club system, it's a slam try with at least 10 cards in the majors. Fancy game tries are for children. :)
Sept. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, well, Gary, there's this story about a pot and a kettle that maybe you haven't heard….
Sept. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, my liking your comment does not imply that I want to allow enough time for collusion, just to be clear.
Sept. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think many people should reread Law 40B6(a):

“When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an opponent’s inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.”

I think if that I informed an opponent in an ACBL flight A event that my partner's third seat openings were occasionally light, it's more likely I'd be accused of giving unwanted lessons rather than thanked for full disclosure.
Sept. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, one doesn't do what you suggest because that might be a terrible description of one's agreements. For example, in third seat you might allow lead-directing openings on 10 counts AND pass 13 counts. On the other hand, if my card is marked that in third seat 1NT is 13+-16, 1 is strong, 1 is 3+, and 1M is 5+ (or a strong 4), I hope a logical person can see that I am passing many balanced 12s and 13s, without being misled into thinking that I am not opening 10 counts.
Sept. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I pass some yucky 13 counts in third seat, but open shapely nine-counts, do I have to alert all my normal one-suit openings as “could be weaker than pass”? Would I have to do so in a WBF event?
Sept. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thomas, you may notice that the OP mentioned holding three cards in the other major. Presumably that is part of the motivation for keeping the bidding low (although on a hand as weak as 5 HCP, it is probably not a very sensible motivation).
Sept. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And if you forced me to pick one of your three options to show both majors over 1, it would be 2.
Sept. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
s never win any auctions, so I play 2 Michaels over a 2+ 1, but I play 2/3 Michaels over a 2+ (or shorter) Precision 1.
Sept. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Although being in 1NTX with exactly two overtricks can be pure hell at matchpoints.
Sept. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted for business XXs, but I'm not sure it's best. I am influenced by playing weak NTs, where business redoubles gain much more frequently (because you can actually hold a business redouble even if no one psyched).
Sept. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That doesn't seem like a bad system…It's hard to be very aware of how often one psychs unless one has to write it down. I do hope they applied the same standard to fake control bids and the like, and not just to insanely light initial actions.
Sept. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It just seems like both minors is a bit infrequent for 1, but if we are including 4=5 and 5=4 hands, it might be OK. Of course, if you use 1 for either minor (1NT is a forcing ask, 2 is pass-or-correct), you gain a bid and can use 2 for both minors and 2 for, say Ekrens. This makes you more vulnerable to preemption when you have a minor one-suiter, but gives the fert more definition by eliminating the Ekrens hands from it. For that matter, you could even put the minor-two-suiters through 1 also and make the Ekrens bid 2 and use 2 for a 0-6 HCP Wilkosz.
Sept. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why A+/A-? That's the ruling for an unplayable board. The director decided the board was playable with an arrow switch, given how the auction progressed. Fixing a botched score that was discovered as soon as it reasonably could be makes sense. Reviewing a director's judgment call after the correction period and without any appeal of it makes no sense whatsoever. So correcting the score is the right thing for the WBF to do, but A+/A- seems even dumber than letting the incorrect score stand, if such a thing is possible.
Sept. 23, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top