Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Donald Lurie
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The passers likely win this board (final contract likely depends a bit on what rho does) as the companion hand was 5, AT65432, 8, KQ74. A 1 opening also has good chance of getting you to 4.
June 18, 2018
Donald Lurie edited this comment June 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
sorry about that.
companion hand was J6, J974, 3 , A86543
little omissions like this happen when I post past my bed time.
June 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have been intrigued by Glen Ashton's ETM Tops system since i first read about it a number of years ago It is a GCC-legal system. It permits many various light opening bids and a number of specialize bids. Parts of the system can become quite complex. Parts of the system change significantly when in 3rd and 4th seat. The extreme complexity warning has been put out. Given these caveats, has anyone in addition to the author and a select group of others actually tried the ETM TOPS system in quality match point competition? How well did the methods hold up? How many of the ETM arsenal were needed to fill some gap. How well did the system hold up in competitive and high-pressure bidding situations. One challenge seems to be to find someone who's willing to learn and play the system with you.
June 14, 2018
Donald Lurie edited this comment June 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe it's well-established paranoia, but it was with a sense of dread that I made a simple Michael's Cue Bid of 2. (what rebid over 2NT ask shows 6-6? IDK) Double on my left, pass by partner, pass by rho and a run to 3 by me. Making 3 +110 for a 2+ Imp loss.
Of course, partner had almost as many black cards as I had red: A87632, void, Q2, AQJ98
I could feel it in my bones.
May 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Remember when Mama warned you to beware 7222 hands, vulnerable. Shoulda listened to Mama.
May 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here's the companion hand: T8, J642, AK2, T964
with s splitting 3-2, easy 10 tricks. Where did we go wrong?
I felt I (opening hand) had been too conservative but my P disagreed.
No, I can not account for fact that, with 9 s between them, the opponents had been quiet.
May 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
companion hand was
QT8, A6, QT9754, A8
making 3NT. Vul game missed. Just unlucky, or did someone underbid?
May 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RK
actually, my “If I could only remember it all” is a generic comment about the current state of my overall memory.
That being said, I believe that what R & S are saying is that FP usually only applies up to the point to which your partnership has forced itself unless there's an LR+ bid and opps are at 5-level.
not advocating for it, just that I use it as default in absence of partnership agreements on a better method.
April 22, 2018
Donald Lurie edited this comment April 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
you can recover from losing a small swing. large swings such as when both 4 and 5red make are harder to overcome
April 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For anyone interested:
Robson & Segal recommended forcing pass rules/ scheme. pp47
1- a natural raise to any level never sets up a forcing pass
2-a fit-jump or splinter-jump only sets up a forcing pass if you are Vulnerable and are raising to the 4-level or higher
3-a cue-bid in the opponents' suit showing a high card raise sets up a forcing pass if you are raising to the 4-level
4-a bid showing “limit raise or better” values creates a forcing pass if and only if the opponents bid to the 5-level or higher
(if only i could remember it all)
Don't know how many people/ experts/ non-experts play this, but at least it a viable set of guidelines
April 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
kindly explain what you mean by “results over learning”.
April 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or might have difficulties in terms of having the funds necessary for classes, lessons, reading bridge books, or even for table fees. And, spoiler alert, not every bridge book out there is necessarily well written or constructed in a manner that's conducive to a certain person's learning styles. I will say that more recent book have become better in this regard.
On the other hand, the are some free sites online where incredibly comprehensive instruction and information is available on a wide spectrum of topics in formats that permit you to proceed at you own pace. As I did in another thread, I strongly recommend Howard Schutzman “Bridge Sights” web site that has so much on so many topics and skill issues, many of which are in interactive programmed format.
And, if there are any questions about how much interest there is from players in learning new material, check out the number of people that attend his weekly online (BBO) workshops/ seminars and also how many kibitz his table when he's playing. People want to learn
April 22, 2018
Donald Lurie edited this comment April 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please explain what you mean by “very limited upside”.
TY
April 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thx RR:
neither would I. but when you have 2 partners, both good bridge players, recommending the bid, it makes you wonder or re-think
April 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, and to everyone
thx for all your input. As I said, doing this poll proved to be harder than I anticipated, and It appears that there are some differences on these issues.
I am aware that the meaning of dbl here can depend on the range of the 1NT bid. That's why I designated the range at 15-17 +/-.
I had always thought that the double of a transfer showed some values and was more than a suggestion that partner lead the suit (unless there was a good reason not to) ie not just a suggestion of a lead, possibly to help win a board or not let the opps make a contract by avoiding a bad lead by partner.
When the Jx, QJxxxx, JTx, Jx hand occurred at the table, my partner doubled and strongly defended the double. Part of the rationale was the message that the hand could not support/ didn't want any other suit led. I thought that QJxxxx or, as occurred in other hand, QTxxx (and virtually nothing outside) was a somewhat insufficient holding. And I was told that the double was just a suggestion. Again, not what I had originally thought. When I gave the hand to another of my partner's this partner also recommended a double. Yet 92% of those polled on BW did not double with the hand. Argh.
So I constructed this poll, trying to find out what, in the absence of prior discussion, would be the mainstream interpretation of (did it demand the lead, etc) and criteria for such a double. As with so many other things, this appears to be one more area that requires partnership discussion. Judging from this poll and the hand posted, it seems that the majority expect somewhat more in order to make the lead-directing double, assuming that it is played as lead-directing. However, I must admit that a few learned responses surprised me.
Again, l sincerely than all of you who have answered, commented, responded to this poll.
Tough game, this Bridge
April 21, 2018
Donald Lurie edited this comment April 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As the votes and comments come in, I see that the question of suit length was not clearly asked. For example, if you make a lead-directing double of a transfer at the 2-level, would this show a hand where you would want partner to support with support (Hxx or so?) and some values (a suit and hand that can survive a rewind)? What does a double say about suit quality as well as suit length (if anything)?
Perhaps the questions should have been what is the minimum hand strength and minimum suit that you would expect/ require for a lead-directing double of a 2-level transfer by the opponents after 1NT - 2Y

I apologize: writing this poll turned out to be harder than anticipated.
TIA
April 20, 2018
Donald Lurie edited this comment April 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
please provide an example for a minimum vul. double after 1NT - p - 2Y (transfer)
Thx
April 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
thx dale: fixed/ specified
i had thought that designating the double as lead-directing would be sufficient. My bad
April 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
thx for your compassion Peg
I still have trouble counting to 13 anyway
so be it
April 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
oh, great
you are right, only 8 tricks.
heck, if i can't even count to 8 correctly how the —– can I be expected to be able to count to 13 :)
I sit corrected
April 20, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top