Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Parsons
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13 14 15 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You have a point, Paul. They don't say 2 is not a game force, but it most certainly is not. And there's really no reason to repeat the “one notrump is semiforcing (6-12 points),” because that's what it is in the unpassed hand situation. We both agree that the document could be written better! Anyhow, thanks a bunch for this very complete discussion – I always appreciate your writing, Paul!
8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ah, yes – this is what Mike Lawrence suggested as a “Drury” style. Thanks, Andrew, this system has much merit!
18 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My interpretation of the words is that, except for limit-raise situations (when Drury and/or fit-jumps are applicable), responding as a passed hand is exactly the same as responding as an unpassed hand. Is there anything to the contrary in any of the BWS versions?
Dec. 16
David Parsons edited this comment Dec. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've heard of 2 as an artificial call to show a (three-card) limit raise, but never to show a constructive raise. Are we defining the terms the same way? How would you show a three-card limit raise if you use 2 to show a constructive raise?

My definition of terms is that a constructive raise is at least a trick better than the hand in the OP but also more than a trick worse than a game force, while a limit raise is at most a trick worse than a game force.

In any case, all the methods you've suggested are not BWS (but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in them!). Thanks for your feedback.
Dec. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Paul, your insight is always helpful to me!
Dec. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand that. What would you bid with a constructive raise that is at least a trick stronger than this hand but weaker than a limit raise?
Dec. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
<deleted…meant to reply>
Dec. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul, what you describe is not BWS. Mike Lawrence recommends something similar to that (but importantly he uses a 2 response to 2 as a completely artificial bid showing a hand that would open in first seat), but BWS says that with a passed hand, 2 is “a strong raise (a hand too strong for a single raise, but unsuited for a higher bid).” Also, BWS does not change its definition of a single raise by a passed hand versus by a non-passed hand. So, a single raise continues to be “moderately constructive” and with a weaker fitting hand, “bid 1NT planning to rebid 2 of the major.”
Dec. 15
David Parsons edited this comment Dec. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul, this is the companion hand to the one where you and I are debating the impact of Drury. The actual pairing of this hand with that one produces a combination that makes exactly eight tricks in either NT or spades, but not more. The worst contract we can possibly be in is 4.
Dec. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't get what you mean by Drury having anything to do with the range, Paul. When you play constructive raises and you raise a first seat major suit opening to the two level, you are saying that you have up to one trick short of a limit raise. When you bid 1NT and then raise, you are saying that you are more than one trick short of a limit raise, but you have 6 HCPs. The existence of Drury when opening in third or fourth seat provides a way of showing a limit raise at a low level, but doesn't (under BWS anyway) show a way of distinguishing between 0.5/1.0 tricks short of a limit raise and 1.5/2.0 tricks short of a limit raise. Certain players will use one-way Drury (Mike Lawrence's new book, “Judgment at Bridge 2,” advocates this…with a 2D conventional response to 2C) to show a constructive raise or better but that's not according to BWS. So, I just don't get why you think that the existence of BWS Drury narrows the range of the 2 raise.
Dec. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm very surprised that people think that responding to a third seat opener changes things. Responding to that seat, 1NT is “semi-forcing,” which (according to Mike Lawrence) means that opener can pass only if he has opened a hand that he would not have opened in first seat. Are the 2 bidders really “worried” that they'll get a bad score if 1NT is passed out in that circumstance?
Dec. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Totally agree.
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assuming 3 can be passed, it's a horrible bid – this hand is a 50% game opposite a 12-HCP no-shortness opener with only five spades. Most hands that would pass 3 will make the spade game opposite this hand (shown by DD simulation).
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry – Double is a single-suited minor or both majors.
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know — I was agreeing with Peter on leading the K (implying KQ) instead of the A being a “great point.” I was only replying to the later discussion about what to lead if one leads K from KQ.
Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The OP says that partnership agreement is to lead the A from AK.
Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great point!
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner was indeed 4=5=0=4. He had:

KJ92
KJ972
-
AKQ2

My thinking was similar to yours as to the confusion on why West would bid 3 with the Ax. In the OP, I discarded the 9, because I didn't want a switch to a diamond (if partner happened to have one), and when it comes to encouraging clubs or discouraging clubs I'd rather encourage (I'm trained not to discard an ambiguous middle card). When partner then played the K, I discarded the 8 to show count because partner should know that I started with at least four clubs since I clearly have ten cards in the minors for the bidding.

Double dummy, both 3 and 3 go down two, but the only way to set 3 two is to get a diamond ruff by getting to my J. It turns out that the lead of the K at trick two is the best chance at that…but it's awfully hard to make that followup.
Dec. 7
David Parsons edited this comment Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see, Paul. That's not at all true at my club…hardly anyone makes Stolen Bid doubles and most play Lebensohl.
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If partner bids 3, it's not close, Paul.

DD Simulation – with the bidding in the original post, 4 is a 57% likely game here without knowing anything about partner's shape.

Partner only needs 3 hearts and a concentration of HCPs outside of spades.
Dec. 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13 14 15 16
.

Bottom Home Top