Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Donald Lurie
1 2 3 4 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting.
I am wondering if anyone ever considered playing the 2 opener as 3-suited with either short s or short s with a 2 response being the initial asking bid (2 would show short ). I can't recall having had a hand where I had a natural 2 response in a long time if at all, so I wonder how much of a loss having 2 ask for the shortness would be. If anyone considered this, i would appreciate knowing why you either adopted or rejected this modification.
imo, this modification of the 2 opener would simplify the rebid structure after 1 - 2 as well as taking the 1435, 1444, and, should you so chose, the 1345 distribution hands out of the 1 opener. I haven't been able to try this out in actual competition yet, so it's just something on my chalkboard.
Comments would be appreciated. Thx
DHL
Feb. 7, 2017
Donald Lurie edited this comment Feb. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wish that some of you who chose to pass would kindly explain your rationale for passing versus not bidding. Not that I disagree. I, too, passed. My partner felt that I should have bid 5 . I am just curious to know how close my reasoning was to other passers'. (fwiw, to mr martin, we had no agreement about the meaning of 4NT) Thx.
Feb. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, 4 does not make, especially on spade lead.
and partner had AQ6th of spades, not 5th as incorrectly reported above
Jan. 12, 2017
Donald Lurie edited this comment Jan. 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unfortunately, 5 X didn't make after A lead and club switch. Partner's hand was AQxxx, JTx, Jx, Tx. The question of whether a 4 bid with this hand was forcing then came up. Should it be? whatcha think?
Jan. 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
this hand occurred on BBO and the two opponents joined the table at different times. They didn't interact like they knew each other, and one of them left a few hands later.
That's why i wrote pick-up partnership.
Dec. 29, 2016
Donald Lurie edited this comment Dec. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
is partner sure that 2N shows reds and not minors even with the 1C! opener- some people still play 2N here as minors, maybe not among the expert players
Dec. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have found that I almost always regret not having gotten 6 or 7-card suit into the bidding asap, even with some flaw like outside ace. When I pass, by the time the bidding gets back to me the bidding always seems to be at the 4-level and now i am shooting in the dark. At least 3 helps bring partner into the bidding. P might play me for a better suit (one of my Ps would play me for a worse suit) but i have outside ace as a counterbalance. How often will we miss a slam vs how often do we shut the opponents up vs how much easier it will be to reach a reasonable game? I don't know - not an expurt. I just know what I said to start with, that i almost always wind up regretting not having taken some initial action. and competitive bidding will have to start at the 3-level for the opps. if they compete, i have some defense. Let the opps be the ones who have to make the last decision
Dec. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I chose 1NT: it's technically a pt light (if your range for 1N is 8-11), and you'd like some better club spots. I wonder if the “better” bid doesn't depend on partner's shape for his X.
Dec. 29, 2016
Donald Lurie edited this comment Dec. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I want to thank all of you for responding. Your comments are very important to me. To Corey and Larry: thanks for letting me know that buying the 1978 book would not be beneficial. I half expected to hear at least one plug for :Ultra Club“ and those canape structures, (and yes, I do have the notes that you and Dwayne made available: Personally, I tried canape methods many years ago but i was unable to remember all of the sequences and follow-ups: It just didn't match my comfort level.

To those of you who recommended various structures and sets of bids after opening 2C, I thank you very much. Your suggestions were very interesting and helpful and prove, once again, that people handle situations differently.

I am trying to develop a Precision-like system that will be easier on memory (yes, I know that Precision and ”easier on memory can be oxymorons) and less susceptible to preemption, for the purposes of using it in match point games, not imps. For this reason, I was planning on having the 2H & 2S responses to a 2C opening bid be natural as it is in basic precision so that we can play in our good 5 or 6 card major at the 2-level and be on par with other players. That being said, the idea of transfers 2D–>2H, 2H—>2S certainly has merit. I don't know if the suggestions of when to accept the transfer vs when not has stuck in yet.

I am strongly considering replacing the 3-suited 2D opener with the Reisig 2D convention. It covers most situations when (not playing Reisig) opener opens diamonds and the rebids clubs naturally: one often doesn't know which of the minor suits is longer. Reisig 2D seems to nice address that issue and many more situations involving the minor such as 6-4 or 6-5 in minors. Them 3-suiters will be opened 1D with alerts and with a safety valve should responder raise to 2D.

School is still out regarding having the 1NT opening bid deny possession of any 4-card major. The idea that this might increase the frequency of good penalties if the opps compete and you have no need of a negative X.

I am also trying to see how this basic structure will hold up in competition in terms of being able to differentiate between 6C-4M and 5/6D-4M when the opps overcall or double. I am also think about making the sequence 1D - 2D show exactly a limit raise in Ds (that can be passed) and have 1D - 2H show a GF D raise (at the expense of a wjs or rev flannery)

Maybe I just haven't see the notes or structure that argue against what I'm about to say but, I believe that hands in the 16 to 18/19hcp range with 5+ Diamonds and a 4-card major are handled best via natural bids and natural reverse structures of bids and rebids after reversing.For this reason, I am thinking that such hands should be opened 1D and be followed a standard reverse structure (I suspect that I am alone on this position.)

The issue of how to bid 16 to 19 hcp hands with Ds & Cs, ie hands too strong for reisig 2D opener are still being looked at. It may be opened 1D and rebid 2N- (I'll pay to the BW Death hand).

I am trying to avoid having to use the canape major-minor sequence after 1C - 1D. When the minor in club, opener can rebid 2C and play a 2D response over 2C as asking for any 4-card minor.

With all of the above being said. I wish again to thank all respondents to the posting. You are good people.

Best Holiday wishes to you all and a sincere THANX

Now if only I could remember what cards have been played. Processing speed and memory are certainly decreasing these days.

DHL
Dec. 28, 2016
Donald Lurie edited this comment Dec. 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In response to Marty's comments:
I wasn't clear but I had intended that those two sample hands, with and without 2 dubious jacks, to be considered in the context of a strong 1C (or 1D) opener, not a 2C opener. I do agree with you that a line has to be drawn somewhere as to what constitutes a “strong” hand. I was trying to establish whether or not someone would get an adverse ruling and/ or PPs for judging the sample hand w/o the 2 jacks as being a 5 loser hand, as being strong and, therefore, shading a strong club opener should there be a director call or appeal. I agree that the addition of one or two dubious jacks could potentially slightly impact on the ODR of the hand as well as the opponents assessments of their hands. (These days, however, it has seemed to this writer that shape often has been a more overriding factor, especially when competing over a “strong” 1C or 1D opening bid.)

re Monty's comments:
Regarding the 4QT and no more than 4 loser criteria suggested for a 2C opening bid: I guess that would preclude opening 2C on a lot of very strong, balanced/ semi-balanced hands with with 20+ hcps but not necessarily no more than 4 losers. Was that really an old requirement?
Dec. 26, 2016
Donald Lurie edited this comment Dec. 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Regarding the proposed definition of strong:

Is the definition saying that a hand such as AKQTxxx, Axx, Jx, J would qualify as being “strong” and would be an acceptable 1C opening bid in a strong club system, but that the essentially identical hand minus the two potentially worthless jacks (AKQTxxx, Axx, xx, x) would not because it doesn't reach the criteria of 14+ hcp and Rule of 24?

Same loser count, same number of controls, same ODR
Dec. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a critical question: how do most people play a double by partner after the 2 overcall?

The above is the companion hand to AJT876, K, K9863, 4. Results of the poll of the companion hand was about 55% of the vote for Pass, about 40% for 2 , and 2 votes for Double. This seems to suggest that most people answering that poll play that a double of 2 in direct seat is take out (unless they felt that the above hand wasn't good enough to convert a reopening X by the 1NT bidder to penalties). Does that information help?
Oct. 7, 2016
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would like to revisit the issues and meanings of the Support Double in the bidding sequence that was presented at the start of this thread.
IMO, when the bidding has gone 1X - p - 1M - 3Y - ?, Opener needs to have ways to make a competitive M raise on a minimum hand with 4-card trump support (Bid 3M) as well as ways to show extras with both 3 as well as 4-card M support.

I wonder if it is possible and feasible to use the Supt X to show either 3 or 4-card support. Responder's further action would be based on the tentative assumption that the DBLer has 3-card support until opener bids the major to verify holding 4-cd support. rebids now under assumption of 3-card support, after which opener rebids the major to show 4-card support.

I admit that I haven't been playing sup X above the 2-level (rightly or wrongly), but I have often seen the need to have a game-try double (call it Max dbl if you wish) available to differentiate between hand that just wish to compete to 3M as opposed to those that wish to invite game. I am not sure but i think the 3-card type of sup X could possibly be incorporated into the rebid structure.

I am writing this at 3:00 am. I hope it is coherent or, at least, understandable. Feedback welcome

DHL
Sept. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
curious: was the duck due to the misinformation related to the rkc response ?
May 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I didn't see the play of the hand and maybe my memory is wrong but, Wasn't the diamond suit AK9xxx opposite Jx and the defenders had Qx in one hand and Txx in the other? (don't recall which hand had the Qx) I am curious about how declarer managed to play that suit for no losers? or was there a defensive misplay? If there was a diamond loser, then why was the initial score +1390 (a 1 imp difference)?
May 13, 2016
Donald Lurie edited this comment May 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I apologize for posting such an apparently obvious and basic lebensohl hand.

The problem behind the problem, so to speak, was whether or not there might be some strategy other than going thru leb that could help you to buy the hand at a 5 sacrifice. Yes, the opponents had a huge fit and were cold for +650, apparently a normal result as we only lost 0.3 imps on the board. Anyway, I guess that short of taking a flyer to 5 over the 2 major 2-suited, nothing was going to interfere with the result, not even a 4 bid (only chosen by 1 voter). Thanks all.
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I said, I was kibbing when this hand came up. I was rather “surprised”, as were other kibbers, when the person holding these cards opened with a 2 bid. I do not know the person who made this bid but I do know his partner, a very good player. I do not recall what happened after this bid or the outcome/ score was for the board.

I was curious about this choice of action given the 5 - 6 distribution and loser count. Would people playing 2-suited 2-bids open such a hand? As “unorthodox” as it might be to open this hand, I was not totally shocked by the action in today's “in your face” pressure bidding, get in and out early tendencies by some.

I am rather curious about the chances of success vs. failure (including pushing the opponents into good or lucky contracts that they might not otherwise bid) result are by opening such a hand with a preempt? I am not advocating opening such a hand with 2 but I can see both potential benefits as well as liabilities in doing so.

Perhaps my interest in this particular 2 bid is impacted by the large number of times when I have regretted not getting my reasonable (and not so reasonable) 6-card suits in asap (especially at favorable vul.), when not doing so had given the opponents more space to explore their options, and when we have consequently missed good competitive opportunities such as good sacrifices. Would anyone open this hand had a small been a small instead?

Anyway, thank you to all who took the time and interest to respond to this poll including those who provided comments.
May 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is it modern practice to open this hand 1 and then splinter? Just asking.
Jan. 20, 2016
Donald Lurie edited this comment Jan. 20, 2016
1 2 3 4 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
.

Bottom Home Top