Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ed Judy
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 251 252 253 254
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Stig, simply send Bob a private message via his BW profile.
5 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe the OP is implying that he doesn't care for director calls and wonders what the exasperation limit is for others (how high a percent of calls) as to when bridge ceases to be enjoyable.
11 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like to call a director in order for him/her to be of service, and to rehearse good housekeeping skills. :)
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(Wrong-sided is not always wrong. Missing 5-3 fits ain't good.)

How might Baron 4S work out as a reasonable option after 1NT or 2NT opening?
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Max's basic structure is similar in concept to that of Steve Robinson's in Washington Std. SR's is a bit more extensive and simpler.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I understand your question correctly, I would control bid 4C. If opener rebid 4D or 4H, I could jump to five of the unbid suit showing no control.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My meaning was to bid 4C as a control bid after the 3S SA; in concert, 4D would be a control denying a first or second round control in club.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why not just initiate control bidding after opener's super-acceptance. A key-card ask can still follow.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Workable response structures after 2NT are unfortunately complex, best limited to very established partnerships.

A difficulty with any key-card asking bid is the void problem. Perhaps only the responder should be “permitted” to ask.

It seems to me that control bidding should dominate any detailed structure after suit-setting.

Robinson’s discourse (pages 299-300 of Washington Standard) certainly has merit.

Whatever, practice hands will take a partnership a long way.

Baron 3C method intrigues me. See what you think:

http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/baron_convention.html
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
However, frequent voids in responder hands can mess up key card asks. Consider control bis. Check out Steve Robinson's methods if you can handle complexity like Steve above.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't get the diagram. The question is shown for West to decide what South's double conveys.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
By the way, this is BWS:

“After Our Two-Notrump-Family Opening

These methods apply after a two-notrump opening bid, a two-notrump rebid by a two-club opener following a two-diamond response, and a two-notrump rerebid by a two-club opener in the sequence two clubs — two diamonds — two hearts (Birthright) — two spades (relay) — two notrump:

(a) Texas (four-level) transfers, after which four notrump is Key-Card Blackwood and a new-suit bid is Exclusion Key-Card Blackwood;

(b) Gerber;

© three spades showing both minors;

(d) Jacoby (three-level) transfers, after which a notrump bid or a new-suit bid is natural, a self-raise to the four-level is a slam-try, and a new-suit jump is an autosplinter (a one-suiter with shortness in the bid suit);

(e) Stayman, with responder's three-of-a-major rebid over three diamonds Smolen. There is no agreement on the difference between showing the same major-suit shape via transfer and via Smolen.”


In response to a query some time back, Jeff Rubens wrote:
“Responder would usually show a minor by bidding three clubs, then that minor….This is not a strong spot in BWS (or most traditional methods).”
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I first thought that Gabor had written:

It depends (on whom?).
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Avon, many thanks – I, for one, was unaware of that specific link. The following has long been in place:

https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/backissues/backissuesmainpage.html
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, this is much like your profile. :)
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A super attitude/article from a fine fella. Good to see appreciation from amateurs as well as professionals.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe Ron Klinger was the first to pen:

“An excellent suggestion, if you have been using 4C Gerber (as asking for aces), is to give it up for a trial period and see how you manage.

The trial period recommended is 25 years.”
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Much has been written/discussed on BW and elsewhere about the dreaded 2NT strong opening. For now, I'll note that some of us strain not to open with a 5-card major (avoiding puppet) and include Smolen.

MSS, simple or complex responses, after 2NT-3S. (If you play complex ones, you will need to continually refresh your memory which can be a drain.)

Think now, rather than later, about the wisdom of 3N to 2NT as something other than to play.

Goldilocks treatment for single suiters: bid 3C or 3D and and rebid 4C or 4D; (no super-accept to 3D) work out a response structure than permits play in 4NT if appropriate.

(If you “hate” the mainstream 2NT opening, consider a different system (perhaps a big club or a forcing 1C) or rework your notrump opening structure.)
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wish I could say that I had breakfast with her at 8:00. :)
Jan. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Messrs. Clayton, Helfgott, Rainsford and Davis are all now pretty much in accord with what the system was and has now become.

(I, too, was unaware that some of the original creators would normally open 1C when 4-4 in the minors.)

Here is link to Rhoda Walsh's “teaching” article, published about 8 years ago. (I don't believe she discusses the 4-4 minors question.) All in all, her notes are in close accord with the views expressed here and in basic accord (as I remember) with those of Max Hardy's original blue-book notes on the system.

Rhoda's link goes beyond the 1C-1D treatment and will be of interest and possible use by some.

http://neapolitanclub.altervista.org/eng/walsh-system-notes-one-club-one-diamond-sequences.html
Jan. 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 251 252 253 254
.

Bottom Home Top