Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Wenble
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That makes more sense to me than a nebulous value-showing responsive double.
18 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 spades and 4 diamonds is a very precise holding for a double. Penalty double here must be more useful, however the auction may continue.
May 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What is a groomsman?
May 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, you're right of course, but the differences work both ways. I'd argue that the traditional sequence 1X - 1 - 1NT or 2X or 2y - 2 helps the opponents more than the WJS sequence 1X - 2.

I resisted switching to WJS for a long time, arguing that hands suitable for a SJS become very difficult to bid, but now I have the zeal of a convert. The fact of the matter is that since people started playing disciplined SJS (i.e. not jumping on a random 16-count), the SJS has become a rara avis. On grounds of frequency, the case for WJS is overwhelming imo. (Although range is important: 6-9 must be more frequent than 3-6 HCP.

For the same reason, whilst I recognise the theoretical merits of Acol Twos (the two main ones being that they are well-defined; and they put a lower upper limit on the wide-range opening 1-level bid), for practical purposes it is unnecessary to have more than a single strong bid in one's armoury.
May 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So are Strong Twos, but you surely don't prefer them?
May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting paradox:

Any pair of collusive cheats whose misdemeanours have not yet been uncovered will naturally want to join with the boycotters in order to be seen to be adopting the moral high ground.

Hence the first place to look for undiscovered cheats will be amongst the ‘refuseniks’
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“In any such case of refusal, no reason shall be given by the Credentials
Committee.”

Would not the process be better served if the Credentials Committee gave reasons for refusal?
May 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm a simple soul. What's wrong with 1NT - 2 - 2 - 3m?
May 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Lebensohl works well as long as opener promises not to bid 3♠.”

This is also true in a ‘classic’ Leb sequence such as 1NT - (2) - 2NT. Which is why transfers (aka Rubensohl) work so much better here.
May 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Like many another convention, Raptor and variants thereof are good on the hands they are designed for, but the cost of what you are forced to give up to play them is too great. Here, if you have to start with a TOD on strong balanced hands, partner is constantly compromised. For instance, he is constrained from jumping to 4M (or 2M or 3M) on otherwise suitable hands in case he finds you with a doubleton.

It is better to adopt a Multi-Landy (Woolsey) approach to overcalling a 1m opening: 2 = majors (permitting 4=5 by partnership agreement); 2 = one major; 2M = M+m (om if 1m is natural, or either minor if 1m could be short); 2NT = both minors. The 2M bid is NF, so another bid has to be found if overcaller is strong.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The bid of the fourth suit … is not a convention. A convention is a bid which conveys a meaning understood only through pre-arrangement. The bid of the fourth suit is completely natural and may be capably handled by any intelligent player even if never previously encountered” (Norman Squire)
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, no. It comes from their book Tournament Acol, now presumably out of print for many years. If I get the time I'll post a summary here. (Won't be today)
March 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Transfers after Stayman were suggested by David Bird and Tim Bourke in the mid-90s.
March 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I find the idea that the sequence (1)- X - (1) - 1 denies four spades much more appealing.
March 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The major suits are not equal here. Just as it is more pressing for opener to re-raise after the auction 1M - 2M when M = hearts than when M = spades, so here I would be more inclined to pass (as doubler) with a minimum than if the auction had started (1) - X - (1) - 1 - (P)
March 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see no merit whatsoever in opening 1
March 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Submarine splinters, as promoted by Ron Klinger
March 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps I'm in a minority, but I would not answer in that way.
March 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If someone buys me a house in Monaco (or an apartment: I'm not fussy), I'll make myself available.
March 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike Ma:“if you have 986543, x, xx, Axxx. Playing 1♥ - 2♠ as weak, do you bid 2♠?”

Yes. (Adding parenthetically: if not playing 1 - 2 as weak then I'd rather pass than bid 1)

Over the weekend, I held J107653 Q76 1097 2 and 8 J109542 Q43 976. I felt I was worth a WJS on both occasions
Feb. 26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
.

Bottom Home Top