Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 and 2 are both more or less OK on values, but partner will assume I have shorter hearts if I bid 2 since I didn't overcall, so 1 is better.
Oct. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I feel pretty strongly that 4m should be invitational. But then I expect partner to have a decent hand for 2NT.
Oct. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With many partners I would bid 4, but most of my partners can't have a flat 6 count. Assuming 3 is an invite, I would bid that. If not, probably 2NT.
Oct. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If my diamonds weren't so ratty, I'd be happy to keep the auction open with 2. I would at IMPs, since we might have a game, but I don't feel the need to chase that at matchpoints.
Oct. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's most likely we belong in 3NT, but the auction is still low, so I should probably explore alternatives also. If partner does not take the double out to clubs, I will probably change my mind about 3NT.
Oct. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since 2NT and 3 have specific meanings, you might as well tell us what your 2, 3, and 3 bids would mean. Are they lam tries or game tries or either? Is 3 even forcing?
Oct. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bidding game only because we are vulnerable at IMPs. Not vulnerable or at matchpoints I settle for 2.

Of course, if you reversed the minors, the hands would fit a lot better and I'd be bidding 4 regardless of the form of scoring.
Oct. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whether or not I play reverse Flannery is irrelevant. The only way I am not raising responder's one-spade with this hand would be if I precluded a one-spade response by opening a weak notrump.
Oct. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I correct clubs to diamonds, I hope partner will understand that the choice is between diamonds and hearts.
Sept. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted for 3m as the value bid as I have a strong preference for that over the other option. However, I prefer systems like the one Yuan Shen mentions. In fact an even simpler version that I prefer, as it lets opener box his strength immediately in all cases, is simply to let the 2 rebid show any minimum without heart support (or even with heart support if very minimum), the 2NT rebid show 6+ spades with extras and not a good suit (and thus cards in the minors so this is unlikely to wrong-side NT if you belong there), and higher bids be natural (with 3NT something like 16-19 5=2=3=3). If you want to be more precise on the balanced hands you could make 2 be any minimum without heart support OR 18+ balanced so that the jump to 3NT would be 16-17 5=2=3=3.
Sept. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The two statements listed are pretty extreme. However, 3 was a better bid than 5
Sept. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why should I be worried about an artificial 2NT when the overcall was on my LEFT?
Sept. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like Nigel's response. I said “natural and forcing” because my usual meta-agreement is that a new suit bid that has not been defined as non-forcing is a one-round force. And of course since it's forcing, there's no reason to be overly restrictive as to the precise number of hearts held (though 4 is the most likely number).
Sept. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why not 2NT to show clubs and Double with a balanced hand (when it's realistic partner might pass)?
Sept. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Despite my vote for 6, I feel pretty strongly that this is a situation where it must be right to randomize. I better pass with this hand sometimes too, so that the opponents can't count on me not to have this when I pass. 6 rather than 5 is simply because -150 beats -300 (and -500 beats -650), but even at that, I think 5 should be part of the randomization, just less likely than Pass or 6.
Sept. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This should be a “what do you continue at trick two” problem, but you'd have to show us dummy and trick one.
Sept. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A and to partner already beats them if they bid on over 6. Meanwhile I hope that if I simply bid 6 I will be less likely to be on defense.
Sept. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whether 2 is acceptable is a system issue. Does rebidding 2 of a minor followed by reraising a preference to 3 show a 2-1/2 rebid of the major or does it show a 3-major rebid with a less than good suit. In the former case, 2 is the systemic rebid; in the latter case 2 is a terrible idea and you should have stretched slightly to call this a 3 rebid.
Sept. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd bid 3 at matchpoints and let partner choose, since spades will often score better than notrump when partner has two spades. However, I'm not convinced that spades will make game that much more often when partner has two spades, since the closed hand's shape will be more ambiguous in notrump and because the opponents may lead too passively, not anticipating this source of tricks in dummy.
Sept. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If we are going to tinker with something, why not try to create technology like that in Peter Winkler's _Bridge at the Enigma Club_? It could be less bulky than screens and could eliminate a lot of UI without detracting from the social nature of the game (and without detracting from the opportunity to read tells from both opponents, which screens definitely interfere with).
Sept. 29, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top