Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
By the way, technically speaking, the correct answer to your poll is “I never bid 2 here: 2 is insufficient over 1NT-2-2-2.”
Oct. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wrote what I meant. You evidently wrote something that does not support your point. Instead of lambasting me for pointing out your screw-up, why don't you apologize for screwing up?
Oct. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe North knew his partner was having an off-day and likely wouldn't notice his signal, so he tried to fool declarer…
Oct. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dude, your notrump range is a critical aspect of your methods for this problem. Not much point trying to answer this question without knowing it.
Oct. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Benoit, I don't disagree: Using non-traditional follow-ups to 1NT-2 along with Stayman-then-2 as *specifically invitational* makes a lot of sense. However, if you try to combine that treatment with garbage Stayman, you lose the advantage of being able to stay low *precisely* when opener doesn't fit responder's hearts (the case where you really want to stay low), and you give the defense a lot of gratuitous information about opener's shape on those hands. I'll edit my comment to clarify. It's the not correcting with 3-3 *specifically when playing garbage Stayman* (the majority position) that seems inconsistent.
Oct. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand #10. I don't think any of the published appeals or rulings regard cheating, unless you are alluding to the fact that an author of some of the appeal publications was himself expelled from the ACBL about 15 years ago for (non-collusive) alleged cheating in regional events.
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did 3 promise extras? Or is partner allowed to bid that to give you a choice of games (between hearts and notrump)? Or does 3 simply deny a 4 picture bid?
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If they are indeed playing MUD then North at least did one clever thing…falsecarding on the second round of spades. If he doesn't do this then declarer can easily make one more trick on his partner's diamond return (by playing a high spade from dummy immediately, while he can still draw trumps ending in dummy if South ruffs).
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And considering that even a transfer can include a mild invite that needs four-card support, so that using the 1NT-2-2-2 sequence as $ambiguous between$ a mild invite $and weak with both majors$ ($EDIT ADD$) means being willing to be in 4 opposite a max with 3 hearts but never being willing to be in 3NT, I think that's a pretty thin case to be aiming at.
Oct. 22, 2015
Christopher Monsour edited this comment Oct. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With all due respect to Rosalind, I think you're missing the point if you think opener's correcting with 3-3 results in playing the right denomination less often than opener's passing with 3-3. Either you use garbage Stayman with 5-4 or 4-5 willy-nilly, in which case it clearly doesn't matter, or pairs who don't correct use it with 4=5 but typically transfer to spades with 5=4, whilst pairs who do correct typically bid garbage Stayman with 5=4 but transfer to hearts with 4=5. Note that “correcters” then get the added benefit that they have made it more dangerous for the opponents to balance (typically to 2) over the transfer to hearts. This is in addition to the right-siding benefit and the benefits mentioned by Benoit and Michael.

Unless you want to play this sequence as including a mild invite in hearts rather than always being “garbage”, correcting with 3-3 is clearly superior.
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I prefer opener to correct with 3-3 so that we right-side as many contracts as possible.
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have raised hearts also.
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can't be playing both SJS by UPH *and* that 3 would be fit-showing. Which is it?
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The form of scoring makes this a pass. I'd bid at IMPs.
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed, why can't North hold 3=4=1=5?
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An amateur event sounds interesting on the surface, but I doubt I'd ever play in it. Time for bridge is a scarce commodity, so when I am able to attend nationals, I play in open events with rare exceptions…and there are already more than enough 10K events for the rare exceptions.

On the other hand, I like Adam Parrish's suggestion of an “amateur strat” within the NABC+ events. I would suggest that it should not even pay masterpoints. Just a mention of being the top (or second, third, etc.) ranking amateur team or pair in an NABC+ event, along with a picture in the daily bulletin for the top amateur team, would be nice and would not impact the open event itself in any way. (Don't try to balance strats between sections, for example, the way one might do in a stratified event at a regional.)

You could also give an award to the amateur who wins the most platinum points at each nationals (only counting events where the team or pair did not include any pros).
Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are a lot of versions of 4S1RF. What is partner's minimum strength and what less than GF handtypes can he hold? What would other bids at his second turn have meant? (In particular, would a 2NT or 3 rebid have been forcing?)
Oct. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or I suppose you can instead delete the part of your post where you said you were privy to the information the teammates had. Classy.
Oct. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ah, so you claim you had evidence. Please post your correspondence with the appropriate bridge leagues and federations to prove that you duly brought it to their attention in a timely fashion. If you did not, why shouldn't you be suspended?
Oct. 19, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top