Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rajeev Jog
1 2 3 4 5 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I should have mentioned the form of scoring was matchpoints.

On the actual hand 2N went down three for -300, a zero. 2D made 3 (-110) on quite a few tables so doubling that would have been a bad idea. The best results were tables that played in 2S-1 (-100)
Nov. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There were seven choices and I tried to go through the trouble of labeling them I, II, III and so on.

What would you have me do, post 7 polls?
Nov. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Michael. 1D (2D) is not a simple overcall. I stand corrected.
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It came up in Wed's Doubleton Club game. My partner opened a ‘heavy’ 2H (3C). I had Axxxxx x Kxxxxx (6160) and bid 3S which my partner promptly raised to 4 with Qx and his ‘extra’ values.
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even more commonly 1D (2D=both majors) 2S (unusual vs unusual showing a limit raise in diamonds).
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I misread the article to mean an overcall of a preempt rather than a preempt by RESPONDER after an overcall of an opening bid.
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm quoting from an article, please check out the reference provided.
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robson-Segal suggest this:

In summary, then: if you bid a new suit in competition opposite partner’s preemptive bid, it is generally for the lead. It only invites partner to bid again when it is a jump or when RHO has bid a new major.

Clearly that is a very minority opinion?
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Added edit. Responder is an unpassed hand over a first seat preempt.
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Turns out spades are 5-1 and 2N is the last making contract.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Spot on. My partner bid 3S with 4 as an invite for a matchpoint zero, saying I shouldn't be raising with 3.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Re. #3:

If responder is 4-4 in the majors, he will bid up the line and the heart fit will be found in any case.

If he is 5-4 then you can use RFR (Reverse Flannery by Responder) to uncover the major fits. Unless you have better uses for the 1m - 2/2 bids these are subinvitational/invitational with at least 5 spades and at least 4 hearts.
Aug. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. I was suggesting that 1D-1H;2H-2S;2N-3m (pass or correct) was explicitly designed to pass only if opener's minor was clubs or correct if it was diamonds. So in this case opener will correct to 3D. (I also play a short club with my regular partner).

2. In the GF sequences I assume responder can bid beyond game to explore slam, using the appropriate key card asks or cue bids.

3. In your previous posting you have stated that “After 1m 1S 2S:….3H = stiff H, invitational” so have you changed the meaning since then?

4. One other passing thought, it seems a bit overboard to have 7 bids for showing shortness, but all I was attempting was to reorder the convention to make it easier to remember.
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, I really like this structure. However, I have been thinking about Symmetric Major Responses (there are several postings online by Norman Pestaina) and inspired by those I came up with a scheme that modifies yours but keeps it (mostly) symmetric for the majors.


2M+1! Asking bid/Relay; all other bids by responder promise 5 cards in the major and forcing to 3M
Responses to 2M+1 Relay:

2M+2 = 3-min, unspecified weakness (conveniently, this is the same meaning as “regular/3344 spiral”)
(with hearts as trump) 3 = play in minor (opener passes or corrects)
(with spades as trump) P/3 = play in minor
-
2M+4 = Asks for weakness (3M/3N/4M to play)
3M = Weakness in other minor
3M+1 = Weakness in other major

2M+3 = 3-max, unspecified weakness (conveniently, this is the same meaning as “regular/3344 spiral”)
2M+4 = Asks for weakness (3M/3N/4M to play)
3M = Weakness in other minor
3M+1 = Weakness in other major

2M+4 = 4-min with 4 card other major (this is a “free” bid now, one can use it for anything else.)

3M = 4-max, not 4333 shape

3M+1 = 4-max, 4333 shape

3M+2/
3M+3/
3M+4 = 4-max with shortness in the bid suit (NT is a spade surrogate when hearts are trump)
<end responses to 2M+1 ask>


Next 4 bids by responder show 5 cards in the major, shortness, invitational
2M+2/
2M+3/
2M+4/
3M = Invitational with shortness in the bid suit (NT is a spade surrogate when hearts are trump, 3M shows shortness in opener's minor)
EXCEPT 3m = 4+ support for opener’s minor, invitational+, could be slam try, forcing to 3M


3M+1 Balanced, COG, opener gets to choose between 3N and 4M


Next 3 bids are shortness, slam tries
3M+1/
3M+2/
3M+3 GF, slam try with shortness in the bid suit (NT is a spade surrogate when hearts are trump)
Aug. 26
Rajeev Jog edited this comment Aug. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Txxx findings by Pavlicek:

From T9xx the “standard” lead of the T is best only when the third card is 7 or higher. From T87x the lead of the 8 is best.
Otherwise 3rd or 4th are better, 4th more often.

From T86x and lower, the results are more equally divided between 2nd/3rd/4th leads.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some interesting findings from Pavlicek's study here:
http://www.rpbridge.net/8c05.htm
(assuming I'm reading the tables correctly, and simplifying somewhat)

From JTxx the “standard” lead of the Jack is the best lead only when the third card is 8 or higher. Otherwise 3rd or 4th are better, 4th more often.

From J9xx and J8xx, most of the time, 3rd or 4th are better, 4th more often. From J7xx and a lower 2nd card, the results are more equally divided between 2nd/3rd/4th leads.

Pavlicek concludes:
' “Never lead from a jack” is a well-known bridge maxim, yet totally debunked by the above table. In fact, leading from a jack is safer than from any higher honor in general.'
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for this link, though Pavlicek has a more exhaustive update here:
http://www.rpbridge.net/8c05.htm
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you. Did Bird & Anthias come to any conclusion re Txxx?
Aug. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We had not specifically discussed this scenario so I assumed it was a general forcing bid. It went 2N-3H-3N and we went down :(
Aug. 8
1 2 3 4 5 6
.

Bottom Home Top