Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Donald Lurie
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dave thx
I am familiar with the 1d-2d-2h-2s relay-2N structure (i might have forgotten a few bids) and recall another one that asks for location of singleton (iirc 1d-2d-2S-2N?)
Oct. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
steve, thx Are you referring to the 1d-2d-2h-2s relay-2n sequence (pp 60 SMP). Note that even there, it's recommended to start with 1M with 4M and 5m.

mIke, thx. does this mean you play 1D-2C as not always being GF. If so, how does that affect your rebid structure after 1D-2C? just curious I don't personally have much experience with playing flip-flop although I've known about it for a long time (another convention which was a new toys way back but the rebids/ follow-ups hadn't been clearly described at the time). I think I can see where it might be hard to establish or be sure about s being stopped after 1-3
Oct. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
steve: hi, thx
re pt1 about never making inv minor on invitational with 4-card major: I agree, and the above structure seems to only permit it on GF hands
re the weinstein-wolkowitz article: i have read it and printed it out. We currently play something pretty close to what it recommends except 1m-3m is weak, not mixed as i believe the article recommmends. I also have the weinstein - parish artcle to which you refer. I recall it disucssing reaching 4-3 major sits but not making an inverted raise holding a side 4-card major. I am just trying to find if someone has a good structure for being able to 1m-2m with a 4-card side major.
That whole thing about weak vs mixed double raise seems to be an area of a lot of disagreement among many players from what I have seen. BUt that is what I have agreed to play.
Oct. 1, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
JA: thx
I know about the 1-2 as LR idea but don't know the follow-ups. But how do you show a LR in s if playing Reverse Flannery and that 1 - 3 = invitational hand? 2 as GF except for suit rebid?
Thanks
Oct. 1, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dave, thx
Is this within a precision context or within a 2/1 context? I know that, in precision 1D-2D-2H is played by many as the bal 11-13 plus maybe something else
Oct. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
btw: In another poll someone commented that I had created the longest OP title ever.
Maybe on this one I will vie for the title of creating an OP with the greatest number of response options. :)
Sorry if it's overkill. I was just trying to anticipate as many possible reactions people might have to the question and just provide a place to check it off

For anyone interested in where I got this structure, google Inverted Minors - Relays (Kokish). (It does not appear to be the same as the 1m-2m structure described in the Kraft-Kokish Weak NT system notes that are on Dan Neill's system page aka “bridgewithdan”) The printout I made appears to be courtesy of unit 390 which appears to include the Calgary area.
Oct. 1, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
michael. thanks for the many responses you have been giving to my ops lately. You have no idea how much I appreciate them. I'm not saying that I agree with my partner's position / instruction on this matter, or that it an optimal or theoretically superior way to handle the situation. But at least I know where he stands on the matter and have to adapt or adjust accordingly. At least I will know (until I forget - a frequent occurrence) what our agreements are to be on this matter.
Hoping you and debbie and team(s) had good flights back from wuhan, and wishing you both as well as everyone l'shanah tovahs.
Oct. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is 1am Tuesday morning on east coast of USA and I am reviewing the incredible number of votes and comments from so many of you. You have no idea how much I appreciate all of your votes, comments, advice, etc.

I am intrigued by the votes regarding the hand evaluation part of this OP. It seems (at least on the surface) that at least half of you feel the hand is a mixed raise ( the xxx in s and 9 loser count being referred to by a number of people) and, as indicated in the OP, I started to think this might be best when thinking about the hand later, after the game. In contrast, the other non-abstention votes seem to feel that the hand is worth more than a mixed raise. So far, 29% of you have voted that the hand is worth a 4-card limit raise, differing then on whether or not they would show the diamond control after partner's Serious 3NT.

The vote that kinda caught me a little bit by surprise was the 16% so far of you who recommended treating my hand as a limit raise with 3-card trump support (or 4-card support in a flat 4333 hand). I am trying to understand this. Is it intended as a compromise between feeling that a mixed raise is insufficient while also feeling that the hand isn't good enough to be treated as a 4+-card limit raise? In other words, a 2-level cue bid shows a limit raise with either 3-card trump support, 4-card support in an otherwise flat hand 4333, or some tweener hand that seems too good for a mixed raise but not good enough for a 4-card limit raise. I would really appreciate it if some of you voted for the supposed 3-card limit raise might be willing to explain further why they made this selection? Is it a compromise? Was that the rationale? It strikes me as being logical and creative. It provides an option that I hadn't previously thought of for handling such a tweener hand. (We would just then have to do the work to come up with how to distinguish which hand type is being held.) Please come back on this. It would be very interesting.

On another note.
I revisited this hand with partner a few hours ago on BBO. I informed him that I had posted this hand as an OP on BW, and that there had been a split in the votes regarding mixed versus limit raise. He told me that he was OK with the 2NT (4-cd limit raise) bid. He also told me that, yes, he had definitely intended 3NT to be Serious, and he “instructed” me that the 3NT guaranteed a control as well. We didn't get to the question of what a 3 Q-bid would mean.

You guy are really being very generous and helpful with your feedback, comments, and suggestions (yes, even the criticisms). Hearing some of it is helping me to work out some of the answers and reasons for them on my own, hopefully not looking too much like an idiot when someone tells me how I answered my own question. You have no idea how much I appreciate your feedback: please keep responding to my polls including this one. Ths one and another few that I have recently posted seem to have gotten a lot of action in terms of votes, comments, discussions, and those occasional disagreements.
Oct. 1, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Oct. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2H would be a simple raise, often/ usually with only 3-card support
no transfer responses in effect, if that was what you were getting at
Sept. 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For the record, 2NT was alerted as being a 4+-card limit raise.
I do not know if P alerted the 3N as being serious.
Sept. 30, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Sept. 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
CZ
thanks for response.
Would you be willing to provide your set of responder rebids/ follow-ups after the 1H-1N-2S reverse if it's not GF.
thx DL
Sept. 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
thanx for your response.
Please note that there initially was an error in the description of partner's hand which has since been corrected. He had AKxx, ATxxxx, Ax, x Change my hand to xx, KJ9x, KQX, JT86 moving the x from the suit to the suit changes the loser count and makes slam a pretty fair undertaking
Sept. 30, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Sept. 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
FH: thx for your comment. Made me realize that i gave the wrong hand for partner's holding/ got it confused with another board from another poll. Age! Mistake has been corrected. He had 4621
Sept. 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
hi phil
it's alll good, just thought I would ask. I've played with a number of people over time who have insisted that it is correct to reverse with hand similar to that in this (and the other) poll. However, so far, no one has offered me a viable rebid structure, just a dogmatic “we play leb over reverses” or similar ilk.
thx anyway
Sept. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
phil
hi
If you might reverse with 17 and not have it be GF, I would be curious to know what your rebid structure over 2 is.
I see so many who play leb over reverses and i question whether or not this is playable after 1H-1N-2S when 2S is not GF. I've tried to work out something but have been unsuccessful.
thx
Sept. 29, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Sept. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What was the meaning of the x played by west T-1? (Or, what are opp's leads and carding including from AK…?)
is this the time to overtake Q with the K and play the T, getting rid of that blocking A? (Nice 9 in dummy, thx P.) I think i am only losing 4 tricks: 2s, and 2 red aces. what am i missing?
Sept. 29, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Sept. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fwiw: Kleinman puts it at 17+, Bergen (I think) would put it at 18 starting points (adding for the quality 5-card suit).
Sept. 29, 2019
Donald Lurie edited this comment Sept. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
maybe yes, maybe no, but i still feel that respect is due. shoot me!
Sept. 25, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Adam: I like your ideas. Just one question. How does opener know whether responder is showing 4 vs 5 s on this sequence? Is 1D-1S-2C-3H forcing 5-5+ or invitational 5-5+?
Sept. 25, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Off topic, but how about a Well Done for MIchael Rosenberg and the rest of his team for their performance in Wuhan in the D'Orsi.
Sept. 25, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top