Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Donald Lurie
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thx, Paul
I do have the book. It is quite god except for a few holes here and there. OTOH, he includes a lot of other good stuff. Is the ebook any different?
Best wishes for holiday
March 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thx again, Kit
March 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you Kit
So responder is permitted to take another call with a max: is what I thought.
Has the idea of playing 2M 4-3 fit with 22-24 proved successful in match points, where some might be in NT or 3m (yeah, 2M might score better than 3m)
Like the 2M+1 idea: assumes it applies to 2-2NT
appreciate you responding
Have wonderful holiday
March 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That might prove interesting
March 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am sorry. I often don't express myself clearly. And I see that I didn't read your suggestion clearly - my bad.
I was referring to your preferring to use the 1NT rebid by the 1 responder as the value negative 4-4 and 2m as dbl negative. However, I see i misunderstood what you were saying about 2m ( I thought you meant 2). Your idea seems interesting: what does responder do with 0 -3 and a flat hand, no support for the M?
thx DHL
March 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, thx for responding. You response is along the lines of what I am seeking via this thread.

So, If I correctly interpret what you are saying, responder can not pass the 2M rebid even with a minimum (5- bad 6)? If so, what are responder's next bids and how to differentiate between low and top end of the range (and i don't just mean hcps)? I know I can work out GF hands. It's the invitational hands that's my issue.

re Mafia: I am just quoting the definition as given by D Neill and in the Mafia Clubs system notes that I found on the net. I wasn't aware of the Rodwell connection.
Best wishes for holiday.
March 31, 2018
Donald Lurie edited this comment March 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thx Corey for responding
The issue as I see it is not getting too high, but as missing our 4-4 major fits. Partner will often answer light with a 4-cd M after a 1m opener playing natural bidding, at which point we can raise. OTOH, as I currently read it, Precision doesn't appear to have a mechanism to check back for a 4-4 major fit after 1C-1D-2m, although one could play a 2 rebid by responder as an artificial check-back should opener rebid 2 (sort of like 2 - 2 in Precision).
However, this idea of a check-back becomes more difficult if opener's minor is diamonds. One could include hands of greater than 16 hcp with 5+ s and a 4-card major in the 1 opening bid, handling the hand the way standard bidder hand a reverse hand. However, you would then to make modifications in other open rebids, especially after a 2 or 2 response in order to “catch up” and inform partner that you have more than a normal limited 1 opener. Some might assert that doing this loses the advantage of limited opening bids. (working on it :))
Best wishes for nice holiday
March 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Henry: I have both.
As I said above, Wei-Radin makes reference to the 2 convention but provides little in terms of follow-ups. I just checked my Match Pt Prec book and it also mentions the 2 convention pp85 (a novelty back in the 70s) but also no follow-ups. Both books use the 2 rebid over 1M to show the original 5-7 hcp, 5+-card suit, nf. Both books focus on the asking bids with the support asking bid being intro'd in Match Pt Prec.
fwiw, i don't see any mention of the 2 convention (and definitely none of the 2) in Manley-Berk Precision Today except for in the chapter on showing the Big 4441. I have looked.

imo, the difficult with your suggestion of switching the 1NT and 2 rebids by the 1 responder.
Thx so much for responding, have a wonderful holiday
March 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted to open both
Suppose you pass the second hand and now have the pleasure of trying to respond to either a major suit opening or overcall by partner. 2M seems like an underbid, so aren't you likely to get higher, especially if the opps compete? In they do, then partner will at least know more about your hand if you start with 2
i think……
March 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
got it, bookmarked, thx a lot
March 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is something about this thread, about what the East player reportedly said, that bothers me a lot. It pertained to his saying that he felt he had “set his trap, would bid 3 and then 4 over 4, would keep his result if 4 made but expected to have the auction rolled back to 3 (if 4 didn't make) due to alleged MI / UI. In other words, using the laws of contract bridge to protect him should his plan not be successful. There is another thread currently running (”Double Shot“) that seems to involve a similar theme: using the laws as protection, as giving you a ”middle", heads you win-tails you win.
Perhaps my lack of full knowledge and understanding of the laws of bridge are inhibiting my ability to understand why such an approach is OK. I don't know. I think it's wrong and not in the sprit of the game to try to win on technicalities.
I can't tell from the evidence or facts of the case as David presented them whether or not the issue of logical alternative to the 4 bid became part of the equation or not. Imo, there was not: I don't think that passing 3 is a logical alternative.
That being said, there seems to be an irony in the fact that, instead of walking the dog, had the East hand simply bid 4 to start with, it would have been interesting to see if South now bid 5, the s she hadn't yet shown….then E/W get a plus score anyway. Another example of someone walking the dog and the dog mistaking the person for a fire hydrant.
Sorry about the mild rant about assuming that bids will be rolled back merely because the was some BIT, MI, or UI without considering LA.
Best wishes to all for happy holidays
DHL
March 30, 2018
Donald Lurie edited this comment March 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
insane hysteria is one of the best types. and then there's clinical psychosis,….. and partner……and me!
March 30, 2018
Donald Lurie edited this comment March 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks to everyone who has participated in this poll.
There seems to be differing opinions regarding whether or not the 2 reverse should be GF or not, and whether breaking the 2NT–>3 relay should be GF or not. A strong system (I don't know strong ) or some adjustments to Gazilli might help differentiate the minimum from GF reverse hands here- not clear
I can't fully remember the companion hand, but i think responder held something like Txx, x, KJxxx, and Q9xx. 3 was a good contract (and 2 would not have been so bad) How to get there or to 2 ?
3NT was not a rollicking success.
March 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is all good, thanks anyway
So, re 2N = 5/5, i guess you played the 1-1!-1 relay. I am curious how well that works if someone now decides to put a little preempt in before you can get to being able to rebid 1?
I appreciate your sharing
March 30, 2018
Donald Lurie edited this comment March 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
THx very much for taking the time to respond- appreciated
I am curious whether or not you make any adjustments to this structure when playing match points?
re the frequency of such 14(35) hand: I've several of them on bbo this past week (not playing Precision, though) They seem to come in bunches and then go away for a while :)
fwiw, one of the reasons why i was thinking about giving up the ability to play in 2 was that the sequence to seemed occur very infrequent..one might say rarely. so……….
March 30, 2018
Donald Lurie edited this comment March 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thx John:
appreciate your taking time to respond
seems like many prefer the 5+ while many others emphatically recommend 6+
March 30, 2018
Donald Lurie edited this comment March 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
thx henry
I am a little concerned about giving up weak 2 bids, especially at match points. It's interesting how they are intertwined with so many other parts of one's bidding structure and competitive bidding.
I used to play a homegrown method whereby 2 denied a 4-cd M and 2M showed an opening hand with 4M and 6+s (so 4-4 M fits at part-scores weren't missed at match points) as part of an attempt to play Match Point Precision (usually no 4-cd M in 1NT opener, too). It actually wasn't bad:
It would be nice if our our authorities would permit multi or minimult in GCC/Basic+ or MidChart/Open Chart Pairs events: I'm sure we could find a way to accommodate the 4415 -1 hands. Don't see that happening anywhere in near future, maybe unless groups all gathered in protest and marched on HornLake demanding change.
March 30, 2018
Donald Lurie edited this comment March 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit: thank you so much. re note: i figured you guys play reverse flannery. What i was trying to do is increase the likelihood of getting to the optimal part score at match points that most of the field will reach: not a biggie at imps but more so at MPs. Perhaps this is just not a big issue after all, that reverse flannery is an important component that help address a number of these situations.
your feedback is very much appreciated, as is everyones'
March 29, 2018
Donald Lurie edited this comment March 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thx
Perhaps i don't know how to search this site adequately.
Typing a topic into the box at the top-right gets you a lot of stuff: I've tried looking but haven't been able to find previous articles on this topic. Do you know who the authors of these articles were? appreciate u responding
March 29, 2018
Donald Lurie edited this comment March 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thx, Dave. You are definitely NOT raining on my parade and I appreciate your opinions. I am taking in everything that you and anyone who responds to this article cares to share with respect.
Regarding 1D-2D-3C-3D nf: For me, I have found that the problems aren't just with differentiating “minimum from maximum” (14)(53) hands, but also integrating rebids showing these hands with rebids showing true minor 2 suiters in opener's hand. (Yes I know that many play 1D-3C as weak, pick you minor). I have considerable literature on Precision at my disposal but, so far, I haven't found answers to a number of questions that I have. In fact, these issues haven't received sufficient explanation imo. Hence, I decided to ask on this article.
Thx again
March 29, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top