Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Donald Lurie
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
isn't DSI another term for “blame transfer”?
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
These were the East-West hands:
West: Q73, J8652, 972, K9
East: AJT842, T93, T6, J5
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dorothy, too?
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As some might have surmised, this was the companion hand to KQ, AQT93, A5, AK64.
These comments are interesting and appreciated. They do, at least in my mind, raise the question of what might be the minimum that the strong hand could have to overcall 2 with 3 holding a 6-card suit, what would be the maximum for a 3 overcall with 6+-card suit, and what might be the minimum for an immediate 4 overcall (not to mention a dbl followed by 4)? For example, change the K to a small (resulting in KQ, AQT9xx, Ax, Axx. or change the A to a small , leaving Kxx in s. I guess what I'm looking for are templates of what might constitute a direct minimum and maximum 3 overcall, a 4 overcall, and a dbl followed by 3.

At first glance, if X followed by 3 suggests only a 5-card suit (not disagreeing), then it seems that it leaves a somewhat wide range for an immediate 3 overcall.
Thanks in advance for your responses to these questions.
DHL
Feb. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
thx david. the purpose of the polls and this post were centered around how to find a 4-4 fit if it exist, what doubles immediately over 3N were (I assumed penalty), but also which type of hand a double by 4th hand would tend to show?
Feb. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
DavidC
re wealthy opponents: this hand came up on BBO main bridge club imp pairs against pick-ups where the price of admission is good and the stakes were 0c per point.
I must admit that I am a bit confused by your response (confusion allegedly being my usual mental state, or so I'm told). You said that East would double with both the “today's deal” as well as with the hypothetical 4-6 hand. You then said that you view the hand as being offensive in nature and would choose to bid as West.

Which hand was it that you viewed as being offensive in nature? West or East? and which hand would you bid either 4 or 4 with and at what point? Did you mean West here, too, or perhaps East?

This is the crux of the problem as I had tried to present it, perhaps not very well. As West, when East (in the 4th seat) now doubles 3NT, which type of hand should West play him/ her for? The “today's-type hand” or the 4-5 or 4-6 type hand?

Obviously one more situation where partnership has to “do the work” and establish some agreements or ground rules.
Thx, await your clarification
Feb. 1
Donald Lurie edited this comment Feb. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
undiscussed at this point (not a common sequence). Not trying to be flippant but, for the sake of this poll, please assume that the double means what you believe it should mean. In addition to your bid on this OP, your description of what you believe the double should mean would be appreciated. tyvm
Jan. 20
Donald Lurie edited this comment Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My parents taught me that, if you can't say something nice about something or someone, then don't say anything. So, I am not saying anything about that video clip.
Jan. 15
Donald Lurie edited this comment Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The first place I ever saw something called “xyz” was on Glen Ashton's system web site (Bridge Matters) in conjunction with his ETM Tops system: I just don't know how long ago that was. Maybe 10 years ago.
However, as far back as 1970-71 I seem to recall people playing something called “Double-Barreled Checkback Stayman” which essentially used 2 to initiate invitational sequences and 2 as GF. It wasn't as well developed as 2-way checkbook or xyz currently are.
I also recall a 2-part article in Bridge World sometime in the 1970s called “Filling a Gap” that is the earliest mention of the 2C/2D checkback that I can recall. I believe that the author was Eddie Kantar, but i could be very wrong about that.
Jan. 14
Donald Lurie edited this comment Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting that no one so far has mentioned using this bid as showing a 5-6 hand without enough for a reverse (10-15 hcp) as suggested on Karen Walker's web site (“kwbridge”).
(example x, KQTxx, AJTxxx, x ) There was also a series of articles by/ of the same a number of years ago in the ACBL Bulletin.
I, personally, don't play it, and I don't know anyone who does. However, I thought perhaps some might.
Jan. 14
Donald Lurie edited this comment Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As some might have suspected, this was the companion hand for West: AKQJ963, void, KJ852, 5. (As of this moment, 2/3 of the responders chose to overcall south's “weak” 2 opening bid with 4 (as did I although 3 did cross my mind).

On to the companion hand posted above. So far 17/17 of you (and 1 abstention) have elected to pass 4 with the above 5-5 minor hand.

So you have AKQJ9xx, –, KJxxx, x opposite x, xx QTxxx, AKQJx, and you get to play 4. This is what happened at the table. Not sure this auction would be duplicated at most other tables, at least not against more highly skilled players; maybe I'm wrong. Maybe passing 4 with the north hand was “crazy as a fox”.
Would it surprise you that you've lost 1.5 IMPs for +650? (I have no idea how +650 would have match pointed and I am having trouble retrieving the hand using the new BBO version.)

This was the North hand, partner of the 2 opener: T8754, QJT98, A9, 2. The South hand that opened 2 held void, AK7543, T, T98743 (5-11 hcp with 6-card major). Had North decided to compete with 5, it seems reasonable that East now might have tried 5NT (he asserted that he would), leading to either a 6 contract (wrong-sided only if the opps find a ruff T-1) or a 6 contract, -1. The interesting thing is N/S appear to be able to make 6.
Why did north not bid 5? I do not know (“only 7 points, partner?”)

I didn't see how many of the e/w pairs actually bid and made 6, but I did see some playing in 4 and 5 X, making.

Who is responsible for E/W not getting to 6? North for not bidding 5? Can the answer to an ATB (I hate that term) be “The Opponents”?

What would your opening bid with the 6-6 - south hand be, both vul?

Would you bid 5NT over 5 with the East hand? Can you be sure West in void in s?
Would you get to 6 on the N/S cards. If yes, how?

I thought this hand was really fun and interesting. Or, as I said at the outset, “really messed up”. Swing potentials all over. Hope you find it to be so.
Either way, a belated Happy New Year to everyone.
DHL
Jan. 9
Donald Lurie edited this comment Jan. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Actually 1 :-)”…….right on!
Unfortunately strong was not an option, nor was the toy of 2/2/3M as 4M-5+s (which I personally like). We play 3M as setting M as trump and requesting cues
Dec. 26, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Dec. 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
yes, I really did have this hand last Monday night.
After seeing this split in votes (not in the direction I anticipated), I think it would be better to simply show both hands in a separate article and ask for ideas of how to handle them. Otherwise I think it would be too cumbersome and confusing to keep re-posting this and then the companion hands as bidding polls, depending on which way you started, responded, and/or then rebid.
In the mean time, I ask those who chose to open 2: what is your proposed rebid after partner responds 2 (waiting)?
Dec. 25, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
note: I was going to post this as a “how should these hands be bid?” article, but was concerned that the answer would be “under an assumed name”. (Often the correct answer in my case.)
Hence, the bidding poll.
Dec. 24, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
what do you do after lho raises to 2 after your neg X? a) after it goes pass-pass back to you, b) after P bids 3?
Dec. 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks to all for your votes so far. I wish that many people had given the reasons for selecting their particular bids after 1 - 1, especially seeing that there was several recommended bids with 2 leading the poll so far.
This hand was actually rather interesting (to me, anyway) as it turned out.

As some might have surmised, this was the companion hand to J&, 3, AKQJ64, 9843. I suspected that years ago many more might have judged this hand to be a disciplined weak 2 bid and opened 2. A few did in the poll, but most opted to open it 1 (Is the hand too good for a vulnerable 2 these days?)

At the table, holding the hand for this poll, i was stuck between bidding 2 and 2N, finally opting for the latter (relieved that 23% were with me on that). I really didn't like either choice very much, one stopper and flat hand. Perhaps 2 might have been a slightly better choice (the poll says so) as it can right-see NT if P can bid NT (not happening on this occasion), and i can always X if lho bids 2 and it comes back to me. P can then place the contract in 3 or 3. The problem was that P might just decide to support s with his hand over the theoretical 2 raise. Now what?
If nothing else, 2NT stopped lho from raising to 2 on Q93, QT954, 52, AT6, as well as from making a snapdragon X. Partner liked his 6 running s and, vul-imps, raised to 3N. (Was the 2NT bid that bad?)

This then became a defensive issue.
I got a low lead which was deadly. I can make if the lead is , , and a 3rd . But who surmised that his A was a more likely entry - nice lead. Of course, 2 rounds of s followed by a shift would have been just as lethal. 8 tricks, no more and no less.
The extent of the e/w hands was +130 if playing in s (and maybe s) or +120 in NT. otoh, N/S can make 2 and often 2 while the latter can be defeated via ruff before A is extracted. What could I do? I complimented the lead and the defense.
The actual hands were as follows:
W = A64, A87, 973, KJ72, N = Q93, QT954, 52, AT6, E = J7, 3, AKQJ64, 9843, and
S = KT852, KJ62, T8, Q5

Why bother post this?
We lost 7.7 IMPs for being - 100 in 3N after the lead, and would have lost about 3.3 IMPs for +120 (NT) or +130 (3m). 6 or 7 pairs sitting e/w bid and made 3N (2 = +600, 4 or 5 = +630). In other words, more accurate bidding lost 3.3 IMPs on this occasion.

I'm not sure what this says if anything about pushing to vulnerable games at IMPs, especially on BBO: N = 1 usually doesn't tell you a thing.

A note on the poll so far. To those of you who recommended making a Neg X on the west hand: I am curious about why you made that recommendation.

Thanks for the responses.
DHL
Dec. 17, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Dec. 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
thanks for the responses.
the staymen with and without stops, etc are just potential add-ons.
I have tried to teach them lebensohl, but it just hasn't stuck. They both have some memory issues, especially one of them. So I am trying to work with what they (2 people, one in her 70s) already know and just add the 2-way double. It might stick with them, it might not. Time will tell.
But I am curious in general about whether this is a potentially viable alternative to leb or transfer leb (my preference). Like many others, I, too, try to be creative.
Nov. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At-At, At-At-At. That's Martian for awesome, so happy for you, excellent. May many more wins come you way.
Nov. 27, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
LIke many others, I personally tend to bid Walsh style, often by-passing s unless I have a Game Force hand. Many people have ways to show the weak 4-6 hand With one partnership we play 1-1 as showing either natural s and/ or some Game Force which can work rather well once you get used to it. So, for me, most of the options in this poll were really too restrictive for me to answer although I acknowledge the idea of “bidding where you live”.
Nov. 25, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kantar's 1974 book is Defensive Bridge Play: Wilshire Book Company
Nov. 22, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top