Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Randy Pearson
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Looks mostly very playable.

In the JTB section, a re-transfer to is either INV or slam try with no shortness, whereas these bids are split when M=. This seems a bit of a memory strain. We play a system much like yours, but keep these consistent.

Related to that, the Puppet-like method mentioned by Craig Biddle above provides ways to handle 5-4M hands, which might help tighten up this JTB section.

You start with Texas to bid Exclusion, which I assume includes 1N-4-4-4N with a void. This looks better than going through JTB (which we currently do), because it may shut the opps out of sticking in a bid that finds a good sac.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with Steve, as otherwise you can't show splinter in OM. One possible advantage, however, to Mike's (OP) method is opener's ability to offer 3N to play when denying the slam try.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for all the responses!

I was the one making this double, and the hand was very close to John's prototype and reason. The actual hand was 2=4=3=4 just below opening strength.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner is a passed hand, so I don't think the 7 count estimate holds.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike Lawrence produced a “Handbook of Partnership Understandings” that could be used for a new partnership wanting to spend a few hours of discussion nailing down the beginnings of a system. Its questions are suited to natural systems, but not constrained to only 2/1 or even 5-card majors.
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, this morning
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice post. I'm impressed you boiled 64 possible combinations down to 8 likely choices, and also raised a point my partnership has not discussed (after advancer bids 1NT).
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Count opponents' hands more consistently.
Improve defensive signaling.
Get more out of my bridge reading by analyzing hands more thoroughly before reading the solutions.
Dec. 31, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play 3 is Puppet when x is minor, and an OM length ask x is a major. 3, 3 and 3 are transfers into the 3 non-x suits.
Dec. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wasn't thinking you have a visualization role in this. Partner is going to bid some number of after hearing your response. If you have some kind of unexpected Dbl without length on this auction, well, those are the breaks.
Dec. 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You would like to both set as trumps and make an exclusion ask. I don't see how to accomplish these, at least in that order. Instead, could a 5 bid here be Exclusion with the provision that opener will name the trump suit next? In that case:
3 = normal cue bid, the prototype would be 4=4M
4 = self-splinter w/ self-sufficient and a big hand
5 = exclusion, as above
Dec. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Before reading on, I made a choice on all 8 problems, and also listed every alternative I found reasonable. Double was not in one of these lists.
Dec. 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you play both Good-Bad 2N (in general) and “systems on” that include lebensohl here, you have competing agreements. Absent discussion, lebensohl would seem a more proximal agreement then the general GB2N, so that should win.

In my main partnership, we play both GB2N and Rubensohl, and have discussed this specific auction and decided–contrary to the above–to play GB2N here.
Dec. 2, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Voted for 4+, because that's our current method. Considering tweaking this to where 3N shows a 3-card fit and strong 5-card side suit (AKQxx or similar): something where there could be 10 easy tricks opposite a near Yarborough that partner might drop at 3M otherwise.
Dec. 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of those who think 4 is better played as an offer to play (I am a recent convert to this), it would be interesting to see if they think it promises 6, or whether something like KQJ98 is enough.
Nov. 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Natural so far, but if my partner reads your comment, that might be changing soon ;).
Nov. 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Monty's list (not including his unbalanced 1) is almost identical the Kokish-Kraft K-S methods noted upthread. We have elected to combine all balanced hands (15-19) into 2NT, and use a 3 relay to discover MIN/MAX and whether opener has 2 or 3. We then use 3NT for hands with solid plus stoppers in both majors, ~17-19. Still waiting for that one to come up.
Nov. 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would 2 create a force beyond 3? If not, I'll change my 3 vote to 2, although I doubt partner will divine to raise with Kxx.
Nov. 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Caveat: we are playing K-S with 12-14 NT. We use a structure based on a Kokish-Kraft method. Opener shows hand type. Responder will have a 4CM only if strong enough to play game opposite a balanced 15-17. Some of the basics:
2: unbalanced, at least 5, any strength, may have 4CM; responder would show a 4CM now
2: specifically 4=4=4=1
2: artificial GF raise
2N: 15-19 BAL
3: NF raise
Nov. 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Near the top of Page 4 you say “Therefore, there is no difference in meaning between a double and a pass.” The opps have doubled. I think you meant to say “…between 4 and pass.”
Nov. 25, 2017
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.

Bottom Home Top