Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that passing strong distributional hands is bad even against a strong club, and a terrible way to defend Polish Club. Since a number of my opponents in Chicago when I played actively played Polish Club, I think I know a thing or two about defending against it. I'd much rather get the one- and two-suited hands in on the first round (with room to distinguish 5+ majors from raptor-type hands) and get the three-suited and the strong balanced hands in on the second-round (by doubling the 1M rebid unless I am short in the suit, and bidding the next step up or 1NT with a takeout).
Sept. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If overcaller has a shape like 3=1=2=7, I like my chances in 3NT on your first example hand. If it were just that, I would still rather be in the better 4-3 major fit, but make partner's hand slightly better, and 3NT almost becomes a favorite even with Qx, since the club hand will likely never be on lead.
Sept. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have the same plan, but my higher suit is hearts, and my lower suit is double. :)
Sept. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'll try 3 then.
Sept. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One problem with mixed anything openings is when you are vulnerable and the opponents, having had the opportunity to bid shapely hands on the first round of the auction, can start making penalty doubles on the second round.
Sept. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think the defenders need to have DISCUSSED not giving count if they know declarer's exact shape. It would be obvious not to. However, this means that it would be cheating for the declaring side not to clearly delineate situations where opener is allowed to have fudged the description of his shape (e.g., representing 7321 as 6331 for lack of a 7321 bid) vs. situations where fudging is not allowed by the system.
Sept. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Note that if your partner would never preempt in diamonds when holding hearts, then you already know it's a double-fit and in that case you should bid 5 right away–so it's a matter of partnership understandings.
Sept. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I appreciate the preemptive value of bidding 5 right away, but we don't know it's a double fit, or that they were bidding game when it's not. I'll bid on over their game, but if I represent a stronger hand right now, maybe they will let us play 4 when it's not a double fit. (And if partner goes to 3NT or 5 voluntarily, maybe we'll make it.)
Sept. 21, 2016
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
.

Bottom Home Top