Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Wenble
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree too. Nobody plays 1 - (2) - X as penalties any more (do they?) so why play this as penalty-seeking? Being able to double one of their suits is ineffective - they will always bid the other one.

(On a different soapbox, I see little value in 1any - (X) - XX as penalty-seeking, for much the same reasons)
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4m = m + OM
Feb. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not heard of the acronym VTP before, but it is very effective against a weak no-trump too
Feb. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As pointed out above, 1M-2NT as LR+ rather than GF is commoner in Europe than in the US. I think this stems from Acol 1M-3M NF vs Culbertson 1M-3M GF.

Can any Bergenites demonstrate that having three different ways to show a LR actually helps?
Jan. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This one is easy for me. I wouldn't bypass 3NT with only two spades, so 4 shows 3 spades and 4(+) diamonds. 4 is choice of games.

Mind you, it's somewhat easier if you play second-round transfers (2NT = clubs, 3 = diamonds)
Jan. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The advantages of a 4th seat weak 1NT are (a) no-one has a penalty double; (b) game is sufficiently unlikely that there is no need to play complex methods to investigate, so transfers are off, 2D is a natural weak take-out (if not playing a weak 2D opening), 3-level bids are preemptive., etc.
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True. Based on a simulation I ran a couple of months ago, the figures are 1st seat:20%; 2nd seat 25%; 3rd seat 33%; 4th seat: 47%. The relative proportions (see Rosalind's comment below) also shift towards the higher end.
Jan. 20
Mike Wenble edited this comment Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Baron is by a long way the weakest of the conventional 3 responses to 2NT. It wrong-sides many contracts, and misses 5-3 fits.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Doug

as it happens, I've just been re-reading your Bridge World articles on transfer doubles. I think the use of a double as a constructive raise, with or without the addition of transfers, is an important theoretical advance. For instance, the standard use of a negative double by advancer after intervenor's overcall and responder's single raise to show values in the unbid suits and tolerance for partner's suit is in my view too infrequent to be of much value.

One element of interest that I'm considering at the moment is the best use of an unassuming cue-bid when that is also available, e.g. after (1) - 1 - (1), if X replaces 2 as a good heart raise, is there merit in treating 2 as natural?
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I disagree that the holders of the 19-count did anything stupid. There is no suitable bid in the defensive bidding lexicon for that hand, so they took the only sensible action and passed. Just as they (and you and I) would have done with a 2=6=3=2 19-point hand after a 1 opening by RHO.

Of course if you were to play a natural 2 overcall of a short 1 then you would have a bid available, but I prefer to retain 2 to show a two-suiter, with the intention of bidding clubs naturally on the next round if able to do so conveniently. I pay off if the auction continues P-P-P.
Dec. 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They hunt whales in Iceland
Dec. 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If ever there was a hand that supported the case for non-PH Drury, this is it.
Dec. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“ with a hand that they should have make a Texas transfer?” Should? SHOULD?? Now who's being judgmental?
Dec. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You lost to a team playing Nottingham Club??? That's not something I would ever admit in public.
Dec. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tough one.

I might have risked 5 over 5 - two diamonds losers seem moderately unlikely after 2NT and 4 (but that's easier to say when you can see partner's hand). Partner would sign off in 6 with, say KQx and Kx. As it is, he could try 5NT (GSF) and we will reach the grand.
Dec. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I have this hand and RHO has opened a 10-12 NT as dealer, we have a majority of the points 56% of the time. (20-20 is a further 12%).

Different if partner has already passed.
Dec. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with Steve. Until very recently, I would have passed over both 10-12 and 12-14. But a simulation I ran strongly suggests that passing with 13-14 over a mini-NT allows them to steal far too often.
Dec. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Per David B's comment, even if you know that your opponents are good enough to recognise a double squeeze when they see one, a statement such as “I claim the tricks on a double squeeze”, however macho that might make you sound, is inadequate.
Nov. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to double squeeze

(Not as good as Scott; nor, for that matter, as good as Burn's)
Nov. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nope, don't think so. I remember (or at least, I think I do) the stars we played against, and you and David weren't amongst them. (We played - and beat - Martin Hoffman in the final round; another sad loss to bridge this year)
Nov. 17, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
.

Bottom Home Top