Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Randy Pearson
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would 2NT have been forcing? If not I can sympathize with the quantitative interpretation suggested by some. Otherwise QJ10xxx Q10xxx x x is approximately the only hand where I sympathize with RKB. Either way 6NT is right.
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is analogous to 1M-1N-3m in strong club systems. Although “obviously” limited by not opening 1, I still alert these. Opponents are not obligated to understand all the inferences of bids you make and don't make.
Nov. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Same meaning as you for 5 and 6 suit bids. We also use something from Kantar's RKB book: 5NT shows values to accept but with a deficient number of Aces (typically that means 1 Ace).
Nov. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've been playing this ~1/week for the last 5-6 months, and it's been fun. It may go without saying, but the bid is designed to fit within a strong 1 structure.

One downside, aside from the obvious degree of risk, is that the 1 opening takes on a wider range of balanced hands, compared to some other strong 1 systems.

The 1NT-3 “Teppup” reply is typically used when responder has a game forcing with a 5-card major, and wants to check back for a 5-3 fit. Various responses could be used, but a simple scheme consistent with making responder the declarer is:
3: 3 (or 5), <3
3: 3 (or 5), <3
3: no 3-card major (thus 2=2=6/3)
3NT: 3 (or 5) in each Major
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This exact auction–(2)-2 arises in Problem 1 of the November 2018 “Bidding Box” (ACBL Bulletin), where advancer has a GF 6-5 in the unbid suits. Transfer Advances would have helped here, but were not employed by either contesting pair, and aren't mentioned in the article.
Nov. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's not the encoding that makes the difference. It's using 4NT as a suit surrogate, avoiding 5T-1. You could also agree to bid the void suit directly, using 4NT in place of the most expensive suit, which could have a lower memory strain. The benefit of the suit-under coding is giving the opponents less chance to double (assuming they would know what it meant).
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you don’t like the agreement, change it later, but don’t be a dissident during the hand.
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We've named our variant XYS (S=), because it applies only when the 3rd bid is . After 1-1-1, 1 is GF denying 4, while 2 is GF promising 4. After responder's 2, a 3 raise is good 3-card support, suggesting the 4-3 fit, while all 4-level bids show different variations of 4=4=1=4 and 4=4=0=5 patterns.
Oct. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also, “Tips on Bidding”, which is as recent as 2015, and Lawrence is still recommending Drury after 4th seat openings there. IOW, your partner would appear to be wrong.
Oct. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Related to Steve’s suggestion, the home page article list could include Like counts.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“P4ttern Precision” (not a typo) is newer than “Pattern Club” by a year or so. Jack has updated his approach to use 4-card major responses to 1. This explains the 4 in P4ttern. These responses are swapped in both versions (i.e., 1-1 shows and vice-versa). I've been playing this system with Jack for most of this year, and it's been fun. Using the Amazon/Kindle publishing method has allowed Jack to produce this 2nd version without the same fixed costs one might associate with other publishing mechanisms.
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The MIT document is very good. It surveys several methods and offers recommendations. I've been playing their “Wolff Signoff with 3 Raise” variation for at least 3 years with no second thoughts.
Aug. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Later on I thought about that too. Of course you can always say “my lead, partner” to stop him, so a rapid play couldn't really improve your situation, could it?
Aug. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dropping a forcing 2 might be a reasonable gamble at MPs, but I would never do this at IMPs.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't mind occasional “spoiler” comments about the other table. What bothered me during the recent Spingold was when commentators missed interesting plays at the current table, because they were looking at or discussing the other table.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A problem I have is remembering defenders's discards from early in the play, when you don't need that information until later. If you still have work to do before the end game (drawing trumps, running a long suit, etc.), how do you later assimilate the discards that occurred? I lack a “rewind button” that lets me visually see the earlier tricks: that's a skill that needs to be acquired at a younger age, or so it seems. To compensate, I do find that verbalizing the discards helps. I usually just name the suits to myself (“spade”, “heart”, “another spade”…).

FWIW, I learned chess when I should have been learning bridge, then learned bridge when I should have been in class ;). I took 25 years off, have tried to pick the game back up starting in my late 50's, and have been looking for skills that are possible to learn at this stage.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would like to see a companion poll with the pointed suits reversed. Does more of a misfit increase or decrease the threshold for responding?
Aug. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice! Do you play this against Suction too, basically assuming they have the next suit?
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Until last week, responsive for me applied only after bid-and-raise (or equivalent) auctions. But a new partner considers that a “stupid” agreement. Rather than argue further, I've decided to go along with this partner, so I get some experience playing the other way. So I abstained in the interest of staying temporarily neutral on this subject.

Despite the (current) 4:1 ratio in favor of “penalty”, this is something that should be discussed before simply checking “responsive” with a new partner. Also useful to discuss: (2M)-overcall-(3M)-Dbl and (2M)-Dbl-(3M)-Dbl.
Aug. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And to Michal Klukowski with such accomplishments by age 22. He was very steady when I was watching.
Aug. 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
.

Bottom Home Top