Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Donald Lurie
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apology, Barry. My comment of “based on” was really intended as tongue-in-cheek. Yes, but do they always count them correctly? We all know the answer to that.
Oct. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Any turkey can count points”
and you base that statement on?
Oct. 9, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This problem has been a problem and a topic of bidding polls and discussion as far back as I can remember. I recall seeing a similar hand in the masters solver club polls as far back as in either the 60s or 70s. I'm not sure this was ever resolved other than perhaps some people playing converion doubles in this situation. (I'm open to hearing more about the latter.)

I voted for 1 and I agree that partner can advance with a spade bid (does it show 4+ or 5+ at the 1-level?) or make a responsive double. However, the prospect of losing that suit becomes an issue when lho decides first to up the ante (like bidding 3 or 3), partner has no clear action, and the spade suit gets lost. The latter has happened to me on numerous occasions.

I've wondered if making a MIchaels' bid with 4-5 an option or a playable idea? I can't remember which famous, prolific bridge author tossed out this idea. I've tried it a couple of times, once it succeeded, the other time it blew up big time. (Need to “do the work” on this idea.)
Oct. 9, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard. Thx for you response.
What you said about the issue of maybe thinking that a vulnerable 3 bid should not be based on a totally useless hand (I assume you meant useless in terms of defensive potential) was the reason I even bothered to post this hand. I know others, admittedly mostly non-experts, some significantly so, who feel this way. However, some are starting to turn to the dark side (or is it to see the light?). So please don't feel embarrassed, and may the Force be with you.

(fwiw: nv, i might have bid 4 on this hand - that would have made for an interesting poll, but i suspect there would be support for the bid)
Oct. 9, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thank all of you who have voted so far and/ or commented. So far the votes are fairly consistent percentage-wise to what I anticipated although there are a few of you that I thought might choose the other primary option.
I posted this hand not as much as a bidding poll but also as a lead-in to the following events that ensued that I can only laugh about.
After my 3 opening bid, my unknown lho ventured in with a 4 bid of a reasonable 6 or 7-card suit and a smattering of highcards but a fair number of losers to boot. My partner passed, and my rho, holding some balanced 18-19 count with 3 aces and decent trump support raised his partner all the way to 5. And there they played, making 6 for +either 420 or 620, i don't remember the vul.
Dang if we didn't lose a few imps on the board on this hand where they missed a slam after lho came in aggressively and still didn't get to slam. Be that as it may. There seems to be an automatic bonus of a few IMPS on BBO just for bidding and making a game, and more for a slam.

After the hand was over my lho wrote on the table chat space, “bad bid double” (My BBO screen name is Double !) I thanked him and started to laugh to myself at my “bad bid” and his helpful comment/ criticism. Everyone has an opinion. (With one mild recent exception, I never let these things get to me although i know a few BBO friends who become very upset by such unsolicited critiques.)

So, to all of you who voted for opening the hand 3, with tongue in cheek, please be advised that, per this player/ unknown opponent, you made a bad bid. And smile nicely to such opponents. I shutter to think what his comment would have been had I opened 2.
Oct. 8, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If your desire is to generate discussion about negative vs positive slam doubles, might I suggest that you include Dorothy Hayden/ Truscott's Cooperative Slam Double.
I hope I get this right - been a long time:
Briefly put, if it's a question of to save or not at 6 - level: 1) in immediate seat, double shows 2 tricks, pass = 0 or 1,
2) in passout seat, Pass = 2 tricks (plus score), save with 0 tricks, and Double with 1 defensive trick.
Immediate seat the pulls the double with no tricks and sits it with 1 defensive trick.
I recall there having been some discussion about this a year or two, maybe more, ago. Don't recall the thread nor people's assessment of the convention.
Oct. 7, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No singleton 1's, I assume
Oct. 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
sounds good to me: I likw the idea of starting with 14 cards. May I discard one that I don't want to make 13?
Or pass 3 to the left?
Oct. 7, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
yet Kit commented above that they/ he has the rule that one “doesn't make correctional bids when partner has rebid a suit at the 3-level”.
Oct. 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
CZ: Thx for the come-back
What you described seems to be pretty much what we have been playing. Unfortunately, it has not been working for us, especially when responder is a 6-7 hcp minor oriented hand like 31(54) that eked a 1NT F-1 response. If 2N can't be to play (no guarantees there, either), then, for us, the hand has been overboard with insufficient power and no fit for a 3-level contract on a less-than-GF reverse. That's sort of the issue behind this thread, the issue/ question of whther or not leb over a 2 reverse on the sequence 1 - 1NT - 2 that's not GF is a viable method?
Oct. 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
i know the idea of not making correctional bids when P has rebid a suit at the 3-level. There's just something about it that doesn't seem right.
Oct. 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Devil's advocate here:
What is responder to do with something like KQTxxxx, xx, xxxx void when both 2 & 3 responses are conventional? especially at mps.
And, if the suggestion is to respond 3 initially, assuming it's a natural bid, what the best suit I can have and still qualify as a 3 response?
Oct. 5, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
another fwiw:
In contrast to Rodwell's treatment of 1m-1H-1N-2S as being invitational 4-4 in majors, i just checked out Bergen's writeup. He recommends that it be played as a reverse showing slam interest, and going through(I think) the 2 (invitational checkback) for the 4-4 invitational hand.
Two well-known and respected authorities/ authors.
Which method is better. I guess it's up to the user, in the eyes of the beholder. But it is one example of how one can not assume that another will play certain sequences the same way just because someone is an accomplished player. I guess one really does need to “do the work”.
Oct. 5, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RT
Rodwell included a chapter on nmf/ 2-way nmf/(xyz) in his recent Bidding Topics book. There he recommended that 1M-1H-1N-2S = invite 4-4 fwiw
Oct. 4, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
steve, thx as always
re the 1 - 1M - 2, or more specifically, 1 - 1 - 2 sequence, you can see from my recent polls re opener's rebids after the 2 fsf rebid the difference in opinions regarding the meaning of 3 as well as rebidding 1NT on 1444 hands, especially with a small singleton . (I have actually considered using a 2 opener the show various 3-suited hands (1444, 1435, 1453 11-15 - always with 4 s) but need to do more work, and need to actually get my partner to agree to try it.
A while back i posted the idea/ opion survey of adding the 3-suited, short hand to the precision 2 opener, but some of the responses advised against it. One well known WC author and highly respected member of BW advised me that I would be “giving up more than I realized to do so”, so I don't know.
My reg partner (if you can call it that) currently wants us to play 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 as nf, and use 3 as artif GF that can function as a checkback. (1 - 1 - 2 - is easy to use 2 as fsf)
Oct. 4, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe I am mistaken, but i always thought Reverse Flannery was 1m - 2H was less than game invitational (5-8/9) and that 1m - 2 was game invitational (9 - 11), each with 5 s & 4 or 5 s (i've seen some descriptions say 5+ and 4+ s. After the Reverse Flannery response (i.e. the jump-shift to 2M), opener can ext bid 2NT to ask responder to clarify his/her distribution (some structures apparently play that it also it clarifies minor holdings from what I've read, but those might limit the 2M response to 5-4 in Ms). So the answers to some of the OP questions might depend on whether or not the 2M response to 1m is strictly limited to 5-4 major suit distribution in responder's hand.
Oct. 4, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 4, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
thx steve
we play xyz (well, actually, 2-way new minor forcing) after 1m-1M-1N and, with modifications, after 1m-1M-2N where 3D is checkback but also shows support for opener's minor.
The problem sequences for us (me) are 1D-1M-2C-? and 1D-1M-2D-? with less than GI or GF 5-4 or better in majors. We dont play rev flannery and my p likes this to be natural, nf. I think rev flan is very useful after 1 openers (we don't need it after 1C) and am left with the decision of whether or not to forego Rev Flan in interest of an artificial raise as well as the wjs (which always seems to come up just when I'm thinking we might not need it.
As for inverted minors being better for weak NT. I have felt that way for decades. It wasn't originally designed for str NT systems. But I that's one issue I haven't yet had the nerve to broach on bw — more blasphemy…much be an intermediate! Even with the weak NT, in K-S, 1m-2m was 9+ which thought was slightly too light unless bidding 3N on a balanced hand was automatic (should be 10+ for balanced hands).
Oct. 3, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I just wanted to take a couple of moments to acknowledge and express appreciation for the many responses this poll or thread has recieved so far. They have definitely been most interesting, even those critical of 1001 response options (I was trying to make it easier to respond but that idea doesn't appear to have worked. ..sorry.)

Being far from an expert at bridge (although I do study a lot and try), I have personally found for a long time that GF responder hands with a 4-card major and 5+ card in partner's minor to be awkward if not difficult to bid. This was even more so when the minor could be 3+ cards. I have spend various times over the years trying to think of some way to address this problem. It was not an issue during my early Precision years way back when- been a real long time.

About a week ago online I was dealt a more-than-minimum opening hand that included A98x and AKxxx among other cards, and heard partner open the bidding with 1 (4+ s). Being trained to do so as an inverted minor was supposed to deny possession of a 4-card major, I responded 1 and the bidding became a little awkward and included having to use fsf before getting the fit established at like the 4-level. It felt wrong. After the hand was over my partner shared the opinion (not critically) that such hands should be treated as purely a GF raise in the minor and bypass the major. Having been raised/ conditioned, call it what you may on match points, this sounded like blasphemy to me. But I was willing to listen.

A couple of days later almost the same situation came up online (BBO) although the 4-card major wasn't head by an ace. Again partner opened 1 (4+) and this time, again with AK5th in s and a hand that would be a sound opener, I tried a 2 response to see what happened. It was smooth sailing to 6 that only a couple other pairs managed to bid : gain 8 or 9 imps when 6N was unsuccessful (P had some balanced 18-19 hcp hand - imo those hands, too, can often be a source of problems as many bidding polls on bw can reflect, but that's an issue for another time.)
I then remembered having downloaded the article that I cited in the OP, and decided to poll you all for your input on this possible solution. (Interestingly, this is not an issue for us after a 1 (2+) opening because of our response structure.)

My take from the responses so far is 1) this method of presentation of options in the OP does not appeal to a significant percentage of you, and that's all good. 2) Few people have familarity with this method. 3) Few of you seem to have interest in and even fewer seem to have experience, personal or otherwise, with the method - again, all good. 4) It seems that, absent of having some specialized by like a 2M response to show a minor raise with a 4-card major, being able to find 4-4 major fits after a 1m opening might be easier if we were to play 1m-2m as being GF. (Then we have to do the work of how to hand the rebids as well as what to do with mixed and limit raises: 2 separate topics) We do not currently play Reverse Flannery although it would really be helpful at times after 1 openers (not as much after 1 because of our system).

So, thank you all so much for your feedback so far and I look forward to additional feedback, responses, and input from you on this topic.
Oct. 3, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
oh, ok :)
Oct. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
steve
thx - i understand that. what was new to me in SMP was the suggestion that 1D-2C not be on a 4M-5C hand, to start with 1M. Then he uses the same rebid structure for the most part as after 1D-2D. This is different from the meck lite writeup by gillespie (a friend from high school)- streisand where I think they basically use kokish rebids, at least in the write up in Neil Timm's book. I have another set of system notes that a very nice person forwarded to me, have to check those, too.
Too bad my weakening working memory doesn't let me retain this stuff unless I use it on a fairly regular basis, but i know where to find it.
Oct. 1, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 1, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top