Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Parsons
1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 11 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oops. You are right!
19 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I don't doubt that BWS2017 states what you say Paul. It's just that's not what we play (and what the two references state) and the original post was intended to ask about it as we play it. I'll amend the post to state that the system is *not* BWS.

BTW, I agree that BWS seems absurd, as it doesn't allow a game-forcing Stayman to ask about a 4-4 fit. But then perhaps the “negative double” is supposed to ask for that? The downside of that, of course, is that negative doubles with game forcing hands will score badly if the double is left in for penalty.
20 hours ago
David Parsons edited this comment 20 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To the 4 bidders – do you expect your partner to go on to explore slam with the minimum opening hand and five spades he promised? Do you feel the posted hand is not strong enough to explore slam opposite that minimum?
20 hours ago
David Parsons edited this comment 20 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BWS2017 is the reverse of what the above two references state. Delayed is invitational, direct is forcing, and that is our agreement. With four spades, the cue-bid is Stayman (or delayed Stayman with a heart stopper) and that can be bid for a game force, or you can bid a negative double followed by a raise to the three level to invite. That's the system as it is described in the references.
20 hours ago
David Parsons edited this comment 20 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
http://www.bridgebum.com/lebensohl_over_weak_two.php

https://www.bridgehands.com/L/Lebensohl.htm#Opponents make a preemptive weak 2 bid, with overcaller Doubling

are two descriptions of this “jump to a higher suit is game forcing” system.
21 hours ago
David Parsons edited this comment 20 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jordan, my note about the “majority NYC style” was in response to your comment “I thought everyone played this in 2/1,” which comment appeared to not be oriented towards BWS.

I have no idea what BWS meant about “invitational” but I can't imagine it's invitational to game in the minor suit. I'm aware of the “fit-showing jump shift” bids endorsed by Robson and others that are useful towards finding double-fits when inviting to game in the opener's major suit and I'm thinking that perhaps that is what BWS refers to.

If anyone knows for sure what BWS refers to, I'd appreciate their clarification of this. Thanks!
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, 3 is invitational.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The large majority of players in NYC (that is where you and I both live, I see) play Bergen raises.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would think that the BWS description is that of a “fit-showing jump,” indicating a game invitational hand, with at least a three-card fit, and five+ diamonds. Some might play that such a jump would require four hearts. Does anyone know the “number” of cards for the major-suit support required for the BWS description?
Aug. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, that “unlikely to exceed 40%” comment is a good one, and something I should have considered. Thanks!
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you have nine trumps non-vul, it's very unlikely you'll be doubled at the three level. That's the law protection.
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would like to think that I would compete to the three level on 3=4=4=2 distribution and zero HCPs, NV-vs-Vul in balancing position, when I know we have a nine-card spade fit and partner rebid 2 freely.
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very interesting way to handle this problem – I like it!
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Question for the doublers:

From the bidding, it's likely that partner has a doubleton club and doubleton spade, and no HCPs. If partner has three spades, he should bid 3 himself (per LOTT) even over your pass. If you double, partner will almost certainly say 3 with his doubleton club and doubleton spade. And then 3 is a LOTT violation is it not? What do you expect partner to bid over your double in the unlikely event he is 1=5=5=2 or 1-6-4-2 with no HCPs?
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A followup – Partner was 1=4=3=5.

3 goes down one (for 100), while 4 makes. 4 is the matchpoint winner.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was looking for someone like Kit (thank you, Kit!) to comment that the 2 was the appropriate lead of diamonds. And yes, Kit is right that the K is the right play on trick one, to show that the A is held. My partner returned the 8 rather than the 2 and I held the AQ94. I also envisioned, as Kit did, that declarer has 3=5=?-? distribution, and when my partner led the 8 and declarer covered with the DJ, I suddenly envisioned declarer with 3=5=4=1 distribution, holding the KJTx. Of course with that distribution it is correct to play the Q, then the A, and then allow partner to ruff an otherwise losing trick. Had partner returned the 2, I would have expected it to be three to the ten (otherwise why didn't partner lead the K?) and would have known to not lead back a diamond but instead play a club back.

My logic told me that the 2 was the clarifying lead, but my partner said that the 2 would indicate an honor greater than the T, and that his lead of the 8 meant he didn't want a diamond returned…but in fact, I think it has just the opposite effect. I'm throwing this question out to the much more experienced (than I) Bridge Winners players – Certainly the 2 indicates three or more diamonds, but does it imply an honor greater than the T? Isn't the T considered an honor with a low lead?

By the way, in case you're wondering about the bidding…it turns out that declarer had four spades but his hearts were so much better that he elected to settle for the heart contract. Declarer was not an advanced player. Declarer's actual distribution was 4=5=3=1
Aug. 9
David Parsons edited this comment Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play 2NT over 2 is a relay to 3, and shows a weak hand, that just wants to compete to the three-level. However, I do agree with you that 2NT could have been bid on the first round of bidding, instead of 1.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You and I should be partners, Greg.

This hand is the counterpart of my previous post hand, where everyone (except you) would have passed 2. According to my DD simulator, 4X by us is a 77% matchpoint favorite over passing 2. 3 (doubled or undoubled) is a 100% matchpoint favorite over passing 2. 2 by opponents always makes. 3 goes down 19% of the time. 4 goes down 61% of the time.

For the 3 responders, partner would reply with 4 and we'd be in 4X…still a good score.
Aug. 8
David Parsons edited this comment Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So rather than taking partner seriously, you'd assume that he's made huge errors.
Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom, explain to me what the difference is between doubling in balancing position and bidding 3 over 2 and bidding 3 directly in the balancing seat position.

Partner should also consider that opponents have shown at least 17 HCPs, shouldn't he? Partner hears the same thing I hear.

If *I* was partner, I would surmise that the reopening doubler is very short of hearts, and has good support for the other suits. When I hear the reopening double from my partner, I'm thinking he has 4-0-4-5 distribution with four spades. Therefore, if I'm 3=4=3=3, for example, I would bid 2. When partner bids 3 over my 3 bid, I revise my thinking only slightly and conclude that partner is 3=0=5=5 exactly.

If my partner is thinking, why wouldn't he have just this thought process? Nothing else makes sense unless you think that opponents are psyching.
Aug. 6
David Parsons edited this comment Aug. 6
1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 11 12
.

Bottom Home Top