Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ronald Kalf
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My thoughts exactly.
Aug. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the headline is misleading. Innocent pairs should not be banned. I like the idea that the country that represented by a convicted pair is not allowed to send a team to Bermuda Bowl and the like.
Aug. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Much ss I liked to play ACOL in the good old days, I totally forgot ACOL as I replied to this post. Still IIRC 1 could be 3 in a 4-3-3-3 and 1 is always 4+. As an aside, I had an opportunity to play ACOL once in the last 4 years and was asked by TD to prealert opening 1M on 4.
Aug. 15, 2016
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Aug. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In any “natural” system 1 is more “natural” then 1. IMO our 2 is more likely to be artificial then 2 and should show both majors. But 2N would show both majors too, probably even 1N.
Aug. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wow, you must have a perfect bidding system and a perfect memory if this is your only problem.
Aug. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No 1 is always unbalanced. Pard thought 1N shows 5-4 and 2 would have shown 5-4. We switched the bids 1 year ago and it doesn't come up very often.
Aug. 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just coming from a club game. Pard held in 2nd position :Kx, :AK, :Qxxxx, :Jxxx. The bidding: (p)-1-(1)-X; (p)-1N-(p)-2; (2)-3-All pass. I alereted 1N as showing both minors, usually longer . IMO he had a clear pass over 2 without the 2-bid, but no obligation to bid 3 over 2 with a minimum and bad Suits. Maybe this is taking ethics to far, but we prefer that over being not ethical enough.
Aug. 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the pro interpreted 3 as artificial, he should have alerted. Omer, you have my fullest sympathy. One more thing: I don't understand this pro-beginner system. Here (let's just call him/her) a good player plays with a beginner in order to improve his/her skills. Why then should the good player play as many of the hands as possible?
Aug. 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry to say this Kit, but this is getting silly. Of course Flight C wakes up if the pro bids 3.
Aug. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also a good idea, but even more alien then 1N forcing to some. I don't mind having to play 2M if I overcall and pard has a natural 1N.
Aug. 9, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top