Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ronald Kalf
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Keep It Simple Stupid:-))
Aug. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The same principles apply in other 3/4SF sequences. In fact in all possible in my system. KISS!
Aug. 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Special sequence: 2 is a marionette. Opener rebids 2 unless (s)he has 5(6)-4 then 2N. After 2 2N shows invite with 5(6)-4. All other bids are FG. With good and bad I would simply bid 3 however.
Aug. 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Until reading Randy's comment, I voted 100% N, but WNT made me go for 100% S. IMO this should have been a victory for WNT. The biggest advantage of WNT is when you DON'T open 1NT! If you play SNT you have to shoot 4 because pard will expect a WNT if you bid 3. If you play WNT pard knows that you have extras in hcp or distribution.
Aug. 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As soon as bridge is accepted as olympic sport cheating will become legal:-(
Aug. 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Try looking at 4SF (and 3SF) from another perspective. Everybody is trying to define openers bids after 4SF. Because bidding space differs with the 4(3)SF-bid openers bids have different meanings in different sequences. Not KISS. Again ask yourself why responder bids 4(3)SF (see my first reply). I suggest that 4(3)SF is a marionette (opener bids next strain with some exceptions) and responder now explains his reason for 4SF. Bidding an already bid suit is natural and slamgoing (#3 of my first reply), 3N denies a stopper in the 4th suit (#2) and repeating 4th suit asks 3crd support (#1). In our system it is possible find out about stoppers and fit below 3N in all cases. I haven't worked it out for a natural system. I guess it will work for all 4SF sequenses, I'm not sure about all 3SF sequences.
Aug. 21, 2016
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Aug. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. With all 3 examples you would like 4SF to be F1 only. In my proposal (pard didn't agree yet!) 2 shows 8-11 and 5 or a bad 6 (with a good 6 we can bid 3 now or would have bid 2 over 1). With #2 I would bid 3, with #3 2, with #1 my preference is 2.
Aug. 21, 2016
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Aug. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Volontarily going past 3N (sequence 2) has strong slam implications. By my rule sequence 1 is a slamtry in showing A, K or Q in . If your rule has 4 forcing and setting I would expect a weaker hand with the message slam possible as it seems you have no values opposite my singleton (I would bid 4 with such a hand).
Aug. 21, 2016
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Aug. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Exactly!
Aug. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not legal, some players at one of the clubs I play have a habit of doing this. At a club level I don't care. I'm not even sure if I would protest at a tournament.
Aug. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It depends upon the rest of your system. Jus ask yourself with what type of hands you would use 4SF (and also 3SF). In my book, there are 3 reasons: 1) 5crds in my M, looking for support, 2) NT-hand, but missing stopper, 3) slamgoing in one of the suits bid. A type 3 hand is obviously FG+. With a type 2 invitational hand, I raise one of pards suit. If a 2M-rebid covers the invitational type 1 hand, 4SF is FG by exclusion (my preference), if not, it should be possible to stop in 2N or 3m (what I currently play).
Aug. 21, 2016
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Aug. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A jump spends a lot of bidding space and should therefore give a precise picture of your hand. Opposite a limited partner The picture is that there is no slam, if pard is not limited you need to give a describe your hand. In the above examples, I would expect 4M to be a balanced minimum with good trumps and scatterd values outside. If you do not play jumps in a new suit as asking bids splinters would be good companions.
Aug. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But they represented IBF, not ACBL. IBF is responsible for those who play on their national team.
Aug. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I didn't mean to criticize Kit either, but IMO we need simpler rules on my level. Going back to the 3-bid in sequence 1. Responder is either looking for a 5-3-fit in or for a -stopper. Opener bids 3. IMO this shows a genuine fit, otherwise (s)he would bid 3N with a stopper or temporize with 3 without. Now what? Responders bids 3N if (s)he obviously does not have 5 (else 4) or a -stopper (else 3N in stead of 3). By this logic 4 (and also 4/) would show a slamgoing hand in .
Aug. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The most important thing is to HAVE a rule and it better not be to complicated. As for you rule Kit, what is the diffrerence between the 1st and the 2nd sequence? My/our rules are not so far apart: 100% of Kit1, Kit2 - “unless the minor has been previously agreed” and 50% of Kit3 (I trust the janitor but not the kibitzer).
Aug. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Spencer, if you have agreed upon your “minor principle” you are obviously right. In my partnership the “minor principle” is that we may stop in 4m if 3N is not possible because of a missing stopper. In my partnership I am obviously right. In a casual partnership I probably wouldn't risk passing 4, but I also wouldn't risk bidding 4 and then speculate about the meaning of 4.
Aug. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with everybody on sequence 2. Sequence 1 is more tricky. IMO the first goal was 3N, but we have abandoned that lacking a -stopper. Consequently 4 is non-forcing and 1st priority should focus on finding the best game 4 or 5. I expect opener to have 3crd , without it, I would temporize with 3 over 3, therefore responder has only 4crd and 4 is cog. Why bid 4 and not 4? Probably to denie control.
Aug. 19, 2016
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Aug. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yuan, why don't you play KSU (Kaplan-Sheinwold Updated)? Do you also have an artificial reverses after 1-1N or 1m-1M?
Aug. 18, 2016
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Aug. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my book 2N, being the most unattractive contract of all, is seldom naturally in a competitive situation. I agree with bidding 3N should the situation arise. Better try making 3N then trrying for 3N (IIRC something similar came up in another thread).
Aug. 16, 2016
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Aug. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are so many sequences where Lebensohl (or good/bad 2NT) makes sense. We have decided to make 2N in a competitive situation Lebensohl unless otherwise defined.
Aug. 16, 2016
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Aug. 16, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top