Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I hate to be the one to make the obvious pun, but it really ought to have been the mixed pairs decided by a BridgeMate top.
Sept. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hard to answer without knowing your game try structure
Sept. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What exactly is Board 24 vs Hong Kong an example of? It's certainly NOT an example of an opening bid on fewer than 8 HCP. If you want to try to persuade people that Bathurst-Lall are opening on less than 8 HCP frequently enough for it to be an implicit agreement, it really hurts your case to cite examples that have 8 HCP, since it suggests you had difficulty finding sufficient examples that had fewer.
Sept. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Intervenor's additional danger is going down in 100s on partscore deals…
Sept. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here's an example of a response that may not be constructive, but that is GCC (because all responses to natural notrump openings are allowed, without reference to whether they are constructive): Over a 10-12 NT by dealer at favorable, 2NT shows a balanced invite OR both minors weak or constructive OR both red suits invitational. Imagine you had a nebulous 1 or 1 opening and had a similar disruptive response at favorable vulnerability. That might be disallowed by mid-chart. It seems to me that not much else would be.
Sept. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Although I bid 3NT, I seriously considered 3 (which I would consider clear at IMPs). To be perfectly blunt, at the table at matchpoints, I would have to look at the opponents' card to see how light they open. If they are sound openers, I think I should try to make an overtrick in 3NT rather investigate a slam in clubs at the risk of flailing in 5. But if they are very light openers, the odds shift quite a bit. Also, if they play canape, the odds also shift in favor of trying to play in clubs, since the nightmare scenario of them leading their undisclosed ten-card heart fit is more likely.
Sept. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The life you live may be your own (again?)
Sept. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And no one likes to defend at the one-level at neither, so I'm not sure I really need any forcing opening there, although perhaps something like Polish Club or Unassuming Club would be better than not having any forcing opening.
Sept. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The danger of the fert bid depends a lot on your own vulnerability. The danger of relying on a strong forcing opening (including pass) that is frequent and doesn't show a suit depends on the opponents' vulnerability.
Sept. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If this was a WBF event, you would have wanted to pick up a few insurance VPs in your last match in case there was a scoring correction from an earlier match for some other team.
Sept. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We'll find out on Nov 8 or 9 whether what's going on right now is a tap or a dummy reversal….
Sept. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It works if combined with a forcing pass. Then I know folks who play 1 = 4+ s intermediate strength (possibly longer second suit), 1 = 4+ s intermediate strength (possibly longer second suit), 1 = fert, 1 = long minor intermediate strength, 1NT = weak NT.
Sept. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted ‘other’. I can imagine playing no forcing openings whatsoever at love all, forcing pass at favorable, 1 forcing at both vul, and 2 forcing at unfavorable.
Sept. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would take it further: If the bid is unlimited and must often be used with game-invitational or game-forcing hands, then it doesn't matter if it must also sometimes be used with a zero count, it's a constructive bid.

I don't think there is even a lower limit on the top of range. A 2 immediate double negative response to a strong 2 opening is a constructive call, even though its upper limit is only about 4 HCP.
Sept. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 artificial, showing a balanced hand.
Sept. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Could we make them sleep together, too? (Bush and Gore, that is.)
Sept. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bill, Bill, on this site you are supposed to call it “Acol humour” :)
Sept. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whether responder's non-pass bids would be transfers would seem to matter far less than whether 1 promised 2+ or 3+.
Sept. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Challenged” is already not usable. Although in this case you could get away with “edge-challenged”.
Sept. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In a perfect world, yes. In the world we live in, we should make the corrections we know need to be made.
Sept. 19, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top