Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Csaba Czimer
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I just can't understand why e-books are more expensive than the same text printed on paper and delivered via air mail. Simply incredible and irrational.
March 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice try, but dummy had only 3 trumps originally. You ruffed the third round of clubs, and 2 diamonds with them, thus no trump left to ruff your 4th diamond.
March 11, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment March 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(moved)
March 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think so.

RHO of course ruffs your high (or any other) spade, so you'd better lead a low one to avoid this, but if he's awake he'll ruff anyway.

If you overruff then you will finish with a diamond and a trump loser.
If you throw a diamond instead then East will lead another club and they will score West's 10 of trumps too.
March 11, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment March 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice greek gift from East of Berkeley. On any other play declarer's only choice is the successful plan.
March 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
my 2 options were
- pass then 2N
- pass then double
in both cases I'm going to correct partner's 3 to 3.

What is the difference? I don't think any of them is likely be 5-5, with that I would have acted in the first round (well, mostly).

I guess that DBL then 3 is somewhat simlar to an equal-level conversion double, thus it should have more diamonds, while 2N followed by 3 should be more (or equal) hearts.

What do you think?
Feb. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We experienced the same.
Feb. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On that 4th position opening: I think 2 is better.
Feb. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I prefer playing strong club too, but we all know that the weak point of these systems is the strong club opening itself. Well, it would not be if the opps would shut up :)

I disagree with the double of 2, it is an easy pass IMO. Partner would have doubled for takeout had he wanted something.

We play this one (a bit too complicated, I know):
On (1): P = 0-5, X = 5-7, system ON
On (1): P = 0-7, X = 1 response (I prefer playing artificial responses, thus it is 8-12 with 4+ or BAL in our case), 1 and up: unchanged
On (1): P = 0-7 or trap, X = 8-12 BAL or 4441, 1N: 13+ any, 2x: 5+ suit 8-12
On (1N…2): P = 0-5 or trap, DBL: 5-7 (and some 8+ with no good bid), plain bid: NAT GF, jump bid: 5-7, good suit
On (2N…): P: 0-7, DBL: GF, no clear direction (mostly BAL), suit: GF, 5+

Our 1 opening is forcing up to 1NT, thus they cannot play 1 of a suit undoubled. 2-level overcalls should be reopened if opener can imagine seeing his own hand that responder has a penalty double.

I don't like Rubensohl style responses because most often we have gameforcing response and would get too high with them, statistically we do better if our plain bids are gameforcing.

Anyway I don't mind if they make a doubled contract when they have 6-6 :)
Feb. 20, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Feb. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am a big fan of Sławiński, thank you very much for the link.
Feb. 20, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Feb. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wolff - After Bobby Wolff
Feb. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ren, simply cut this post and insert the suit sympols into your original article, it can be modified after publishing.
Feb. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nick, in reality (this Monday) West led low from QJxxxx, causing the whole show to happen! I modified East-West hands in my article a bit to make it more spectacular as a quiz. I was shocked to see their cards after the board (I was dummy) :).
Feb. 18, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Feb. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've got a copy of “Sytems in defence” by Slawinsky (in English, 1983, translated from the 3rd Polish edition, 1980). In this one he suggests the following - he calls it Combine:

H = A…J

A = AKx(…),
K = AK, KQx(…), AKJ(…),
Q = KQ, QJx(…), KQT(…),
J = QJ, JTx(…), AQJ,
T = Txx(…), AJT(…), KJT(…), Tx (NT)
9 = 9xx(…), AT9(…), KT9(…), QT9(…), 9x (NT)

low from xx against suit
highest non-potentially-trick-taking card from xxx(…)
3rd/5th from Hxx(…)
4th/6th from HHxx(…)

In other words:
- from HH doubleton the 2nd
- from short sequence (HHx(…)) the top
- from full sequence (HHH+) the 2nd, but may play the top
- from a broken sequence (AKJ, KDT, …): the 2nd (may play the top)
- J/T/9 is 0 or 2 higher
- small x is an agressive lead (from H or xx against suit)
- high x is a passive lead

Slawinsky proves across cca 60 pages that it's technically superior to any other lead system.

However, it is not exactly the same what you described.

It used to be popular in Hungary, some play it now too. I used to play it too but found it too difficult to distinguish xx from Jxx or similar and HHxx from Hxxxx, perhaps the former should not be a problem, because one should rarely lead from xx.

In short: when you play combine, noone will know anything surely, neither partner, nor declarer.
Feb. 18, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Feb. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
the other play loses only vs 3-1 trumps and Qxxx at West, which is 5.6% combined (4/10*P(4-1) * P(3-1)) = 11.4% * 49.7% = 5.6%). Or am I missing something?
Feb. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is it a better chance than 3-2 ?
Feb. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We played this one at a time (called “funny diamond”):

1: 16+, like in precision but with artificial responses (showing shape)
1: 11-15, unbalanced hand containing one or both 4-card major(s)
1: 11-15, 5+ suit
1N: 12-15 balanced
2: 11-15, 6+ or 54+ minors, denies majors
2: 11-15, 6+ , denies majors

It worked pretty well (2 might look strange but was not a real problem when we did not pass it with support in both minors.

The weak NT and 2 openings had a mild preemptive effect: the opponents could intervene only on level 2 with their major. When they bid on our 1 opening we could guess opener's major with a great chance.

Well, this one did not give up really either minor.
Feb. 6, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Feb. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think partner's 3 and then 4 was quite an intelligent sequence, bad luck that he had just the perfect cards for 6. Funny, but I feel that we both bid well, just could not realize how perfectly our hands complete each other's.
Of course had I responded 2 we probably bid 6 with these hands, but we also would have bid it when we should not have, or stopped in 5 after keycard ask - which is a disaster at MP scoring.
Jan. 24, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Jan. 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He had AK10975, K432, AQ10
Jan. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, I thought that partner had a slam try (he had). However, I thought that I have sub-minimal GF facing his club void, thus I passed. Our 2 can include a weak diamond suit like this. Had I wanted to play a slam I could have jumped to 6 and I think he would have understood it.
Jan. 23, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top