Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Donald Lurie
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
cool, thx
Oct. 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just mentioning it for anyone who might be interested. I, personally, could never handle 4-card major systems, but that's just me.
Oct. 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you. So, let me see if I can take shot at some of the rest:
Do you still play 2NT thru 3 as transfers (3 = 1-suited hand), 3 = 6-4 Ms), all GF go thru 2 (so no need for 3 rebids to be GF/ slam tries?), 2D - 2/2N/3 remain the same as mecklite/ smp, etc for starters? Invite 6-4 Ms go thry 2 (believe it or not, I've read where some play 2 - 2 as rev flannery)?
Thx in advance.
DHL
Oct. 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You misunderstood my question. I was referring to being able to get out at 2H on sequence 2 - 2. It's just one sequence that you lose. It seems yu can get out at 2 on 2 - 2, assuming that 2 is natural nf.
sorry if I wasn't clear. I ask out of curiosity, especially when someone presents what sounds like a very interesting idea. I would never be disrespectful. I would be interesting if you might provide more info on follow-ups to 2-2 - these innovations intrigue me.
Oct. 25, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 25, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does that create any problems at match points in terms of missing 2M contracts that most of the field might be in? i guess that you're only missing 2 contracts, so maybe just a trade-off? Interesting idea
Oct. 25, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 25, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
interesting vote so far.
so the vast majority of you are saying that, using a sayc method, had the bidding gone 1NT - 3 invitational, you would decline the invitation.
Wonder what the consequences would be if playing 1NT - 3 as s or range ask. Wouldn't you rate this hand as a maximum and rebid 3?
What is partner then supposed to do with 97x, QTx, x, KQ98xx?
Oct. 25, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you are really looking for a canape club system you might try the Caroline Club system, (allegedly based on the Sukonek-Ekeblad system). Doug Bone and Scott Benson apparently have revised it recently. I haven't reviewed the new system, but all ya gotta do is google it. There is also the Ultra Club which seems so very complex. I believe the authors updated or revised to a newer system: ask larry lowell. Both are 4-card major systems I believe.
Oct. 25, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
agree, GF, slam interest
pps 75-76 of dan neill's smp book

Steve, do transfer methods over 2C help resolve this. I've trying to check out some resources, but so far haven't found anything except for more confusing/ complex sequences. Seems like a couple of top US precision players played 2C - 3D/H/S as natural invites, but the notes are about 13+ years old (assuming they are even accurate). TIA
Oct. 24, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 24, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
merci, makes sense.
then again, i have a partner who has to agree: he probably would
i am just a slave
Oct. 24, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good question. Have wondered about same thing when i played precision. Part of the problem seems to be that if you try to go through the 2 ask sequence, further diamond bids by responder iirc are slam tries in s. (not so in much earlier versions afaik.
Oct. 24, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 24, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RR: I agree that 4 had to show huge major hand, in fact, too large to bid naturally. LIke I said above, brain had died a couple of hours earlier.
My question to you is, if i respond 5 to 4 (as opposed to 4), to show the good trump support (I already implied a King-plus by my pass), how would/ could partner now check back to see about the Ace of Spades? 6s? Is this clearly what 6 means/ asks?
My hand was still not clearly defined in terms of controls by my pass of 3
Oct. 24, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 24, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This was the companion hand to another hand recently polled:
KQJ943, AKQ75, AJ, void. What is interesting is that, so far, people have selected a 3S rebid versus a 4 rebid on by about 3 to 1.
Oct. 24, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 24, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We had never encountered or discussed this situation, so no specific agreement.
(This occurred at 1:15 or so in the morning on BBO, was half-asleep and brain-dead, and totally missed the inference/ implication of this auction until I saw partner's hand. After seeing his hand, i thought he had made a very good bid and that I had just totally blown it and not read it at all.)
Oct. 23, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry.
Simple brain-dead typing entry error.
Meant 3 = s, Error has been corrected. Thanks for the catch.
Oct. 23, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
hope it's not the mean distance from any table in the playing area to the rest rooms….or to the parking lot for that matter. I ain't playing in that game.
Oct. 23, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
just a hypothetical question, not likely on the above hands, but please induge. Obviously I am not a TD or overly familiar with all that many procedures, but trying to learn.
Suppose that west gives a completely accurate and correct explanation, and suppose that east agrees with all explanations but blew the response to the key card ask, showing 1 more key card than actually in his/ her hand. Like saying 2 while having 1. And east becomes aware either before or after west's explanation.
Is east obligated to inform the person on lead that they misbid prior to the opening lead, that his/ her announced number of key cards was incorrect?
I really don't know the answer here. Part of me instinctively says yes for a couple of reasons (FD for one), but someone i asked said no, that east is only obligated to fully disclose what the partnership agreements are/ were. No doesn't feel right to me, but may be according to procedure/ reg/ law, whatever. If yes, if not prior to opening lead, then when/ how? Or just call the director prior to the lead?
If the correct procedure is to call the director prior to opening lead, how should a director handle the situation? Is this adressed in the laws somewhere under the topic of MI? fwiw, i looked at 21B3 and couldn't tell from what I read. Only something about an adjusted score if the director decided that the non-offending side was injured. So that would suggest a director call by east prior to the lead, but IDK. (The answer was probably right in front of my face and I just missed it - sorry)
Thx in advance
Oct. 22, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 22, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
that helps clarify it. thx
Oct. 22, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK, now you guys managed to get me to look at the ACBL Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2017 Revised Authorized Edition. I saw where in the intro, (pp iii - iv) it refers to “may” do, “does”, “should” do, shall do (violations will incur a penalty more often than not), and must do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). I didn't see there where it stipulated procedural penalties specifically, so I must have been looking in the wrong place. More direction from those who know would be appreciated. maybe in a different place or different document?

re David's C's comment about PPs for slow play in “acbl's biggest events”, after having struggled to sit and watch so many laboriously long vugraphs, I share that sentiment (if i read him correctly).
ER: fwiw I sincerely compliment you for attempting to teach players at your club about the laws and regulations. Wish people would have done that when i was starting out or even now. Don't give up on your efforts.
Oct. 22, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If it's not too much to ask, I would appreciate it if the 4 bidders would kindly explain their' choice and what message they intend the 4 bid to bring. fwiw: slight spoiler alert, the person holding this hand made the same 4 bid. So i am curious to see if those posting a 4 bid intended it to mean the same thing as the actual 4 bidder.
thx in advance
Oct. 22, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Soylent Green? Isn't that the movie that brought a whole new meaning to the phrase, “You are who you eat”?
Oct. 22, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top