Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Donald Lurie
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wdtrnr:
2 forcing to 3
1NT = 6-10
re partner's hand: we open 11-counts with shape and rebid, almost all 12s
1 can be 2+ if 4-4 in majors
check out the KnR evaluation of this hand

thx for responding
April 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted for Nurse Ratched, not because i think 3 is or is not insane, but because I liked Nurse Ratched
Years ago, when I was a staff psychologist in a Mass state hospital, I called one of the nurses (a friend) Nurse Ratched. Almost immediately after I was ducking away from the book that came flying my way, followed by a second.
So please give it up for Nurse Ratched
April 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, the x, AKQJT8, KQT8xx, void hand was the companion. The underlying purpose was to see if there was a way to avoid playing 10 on the hand.
I was going to present this as an ATB problem but, invariably, someone (or 2 or 3) question why the hand wasn't presented as a bidding poll. and fwiw, i abhor the term ATB and try to avoid it. Maybe next time I'll present such hands in a format such as “could this have been avoided?” or something similar.
Thx for responding
April 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
thank you.
Are you suggesting 4 followed by 5, or something else. You will play in 10 if you do so. and, fwiw, a 5 bid now also gets you to 10 when P takes a preference holding 2-1 in the red suits.
April 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you.
Certainly reasonable (if not commonplace), but not an option on this occasion. As stated in the poll, the partnership agreement is currently to play a modification of DONT in which 2NT is for minors and 2m = m+M
April 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
yes, but don't tell anyone, just making no one is X'g with this hand
thx for response
April 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Njgel: Thx for sharing
I remember reading this when you posted it 3 or 4 years ago. I remember that one of the sub-themes of your article was about liabilities of the 1 - 2NT nf/ GI sequence with various responder hand. Were you also playing 1-2 as not always GF?
Best wishes
April 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
omg Thx, Mike, for picking up on the clerical error
The post should have read 1NT rebid by 1 responder is 0-5, less than 4s & less than 4s. My bad.
nice pick up
Best wishes
April 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
another interesting set of responses and rebids
thx for sharing
April 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thx for sharing this
April 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thx Brian
April 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
you are correct
I do see that there were a lot of abstentions in at least some of those polls
thx
April 1, 2018
Donald Lurie edited this comment April 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thx John
April 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thx Ian. This sounds interesting.
April 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hey Adam: Thx so much
April 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thx, steve. This looks like the mecklite version in Dan Neill's book except for the splinters not going through 2 - unspecified splinter (vs in Neil Timms' chapter by Luke Gillespie and Jim Streisand) and some other notes I have. Wasn't sure if it was playable in a typical, non-Precision 2/1 context, or how many people actually do play it.
April 1, 2018
Donald Lurie edited this comment April 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael: please don't get me wrong. I don't “reject” canape per se. I just wasn't able to handle it even partly well when I tried it decades (and decades) ago. I think we were toying with Roman or Neapolitan Club (precursor to BTC) at the time: I still have that old Kaplan book on italian systems.
I DO agree with you that it would be a very good thing to be able to get the 4-card majors out of the 2 opening bid. I've been looking at possible ways to do it for a long but, with one exception, they always wind up with convolutions that get blown up if the opponents compete, especially if they preempt. Except for when we gave up weak 2 bids in the majors and had out 2M opener show 4M = 6. That wasn't so bad at all, just gave up a bit too much imo. Would be nice if acbl finally permitted minimult. Then would just have to integrate the 3-suiter into the 1 complex.
best wishes
April 1, 2018
Donald Lurie edited this comment April 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you :)
April 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 doesn't “promise” values per se. It can be made on a hand that has support/ raise that was just checking back for a 4-4 major fit, planning to correct to 3 or 4, depending on opener's rebids. If this is the case then a) the 2 bidder has 4 s and can correct to 4 knowing it sort of a double fit. If the 2 bidder has 4 s, then he/ she knows opener's hand distro-wise, and is batter placed to decide what to do over 4. And then there are the hands where the 2 bidding might have some GF hand with a 5-card suit.
On the other hand, if one passes when holding a 4-card suit, how will responder know what to do over 4? Is X a t/o, hoping opener has 4 spades or can convert? Or is it business. I just think it's easier on responder if the X of 4 by opener shows 4s because it make partner's decisions easier and covers more possibilities.
If this line of reasoning is faulty, please explain where. I can take it.
Had the preempt been 4, the meaning might be different. Leave than one for another poll.
best wishes
April 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
with 0 to 3 and 3M, doesn't one rebid 1NT and then either pass or (usually) correct to 2M should opener rebid 2Y? With 0 to 3/4 and 4M, one raises to 2M immediately. Opener is unlikely to be 5332. Maybe I have it wrong. dunno. I like to ask
thx
April 1, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top