Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ronald Kalf
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pard will lead a D against 6N if he expects the 1st X to be based upon D AQ and will NOT lead a D (and thus by exclusion a C) if he expects the 1st X to be based upon a void. This is independent from the 2nd X. Ergo, the 2nd X simply increases the penalty.
April 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well pard didn't act. Possibly because s(he) has a penalty double or a balanced 9-12. Could also be 3-6 and 4-3-3-3 leading to disaster or 0-3 pushing them in a makeble game. Maybe there is a part score for us, just as likely they are not in their best partscore (yet).
April 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'll carefully watch my results for interference after our WNT. If they start getting bad, I might reconsider. Still I have an uneasy feeling about reopening with a WNT.
April 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like the idea of doubling the cue to avoid a spade lead. Would that apply also if the cue is asking for a stop? (1m)-2M-(X)-P; 3M or even over a non-jump overcall (1M)-2m-(X)-P; (3m)?. Of course XX can then show a half-stopper, but OTOH, you do not like pard to lead your suit anyway.
April 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I prefer penalty doubles, unduscussed scrambling
April 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David that is INCREDIBLE
April 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I restarted playing the beautifull game of bridge after a 34 year absence two things were a total surprise: bidding boxes (great idea) and alerting (doesn't make sense to me even after 4 years). In the good old days everybody had a convention card and everybody just asked questions, whenever they felt the need for information. Since asking was normal, there was hardly danger of UI. I could live with alerting if the rules were uniform and logical. They are not! Why do I alert weak two, although 90%+x play it. Why do I alert in bid in opps suit, although it is conventional 90%+x of the time. In Germany alerting of Pass, Double and Redouble was FORBIDDEN until 31.12.2015, today it must be alerted if it has an unusual meaning. How many players do you think will alert correctly? Ha, not even officials of the “Deutsche Bridge Verband” are sure. Like most players I ignore the alert, if I am not going to bis anyway. Why should I? Sometimes it helps opps. If I ignore the alert pard and opps know that I have nothing to bid. If there is no alerting, it can either mean that I have nothing to bis OR that the information on the convention card is sufficient for the moment. Ah, but why do I get so agitated? Alerting will not be disposed of anyway. In that respect its just like the “Sektsteuer” (tax on sparkling wine) which was introduced in the 19th centurary to finance the German war fleet.
April 21, 2016
Ronald Kalf edited this comment April 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I beg forgiveness, Ron the Greater. To my excuse I must say, that I have no experience with doubling 1N with a balanced hand. I never ever double 1N with a balanced hand. I do have experience with doubling 1N however and double SNT with any hand that would double WNT.
April 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry Marko, but your statement “You are stating that she is taking advantage, but you cannot prove it” makes me mad. You can never “prove” that someone is taking advantage of UI, but it would be 100% clear in the sequence you are suggesting. IMHO taking advantage of UI comes is second worst behaviour in bridge. Only outright cheating is worse.
April 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael explained it better than I did!. It would have been better if Traceys partner hadn't said anything. Now Tracey must bid as if her partner hadn't said anything.
April 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First of all, a roll back to 1N is only possible if 2 is the only allowed response to 2. If other responses are possible, there is a (minimal) UI. As for Stayman/Transfer, I am not sure how a ruling should be. You are obviously making a bid that you wouldn't have made without the UI that pard wanted to open 1N. I'd say that's not different from an unallowed pass.
April 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rimmington Wriggle: XX is business! Now both can double if opps escape, not just responder. (That's when we get our best scores after WNT). To run: 2X is natural, weak. Pass is forcing, opener bids 2 with 5 or 4-4M (then XX - and 2 - if doubled) 2 with 5 or 4-4 (then 2 if doubled), XX with 4-4other (then 2 with 4 or 4-4M, 2 4-3-3-3, not 4 and 2 4-4). With 4-3-3-3 opener passes and hopes for the best.
April 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I love all of you. The best thing about WNT is that so many people don't want to be outbid. In this case however, N has a “normal” double over either SNT or WNT and S should bid 2. Personally I don't double 1N on high cards only. We double with a good suit to lead.
April 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, I missed Dave Kresh' question. It is in 1. I'll change it.
It seems I cannot edit the original artcle anymore???
c) should read 15-20 balanced.
After 1 we rebid 1N with 15-17 and 1-1; 1-1; 1N with 19-20, 2N with 23-24 and 2N via 1 with 25+. After a positive 1M we rebid 1N with 15-18 and 2 with 19+ (or 3 with 4crd in M).
April 18, 2016
Ronald Kalf edited this comment April 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I hope to sort out the “internal inconsistensies” as well as “to complex structures”. We had a bidding sequence starting with 1-1?; 2 (19+, 0-3 ) and then 3 relays. Pard gave the wrong explanation on one of my responses which I corrected before the lead. His comment: “to many relays, to complicated” (to complex structure). I simplified the bidding structure, but then found that there was not room enough to show hands with exactly 4-4 in the majors (internal inconsistency).
April 17, 2016
Ronald Kalf edited this comment April 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course every system started as a homegrown. They can evolve if they are played often. If the inventor is well-known and/or successfull (s)he would write a book. Many others play the system, some give feedback. Today we have webforums and can hope to get feedback even if we are not well-known.
April 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“None of the likely meanings … are alertable in the ACBL” Until 12/2015 it was forbidden to alert pass, double and redouble in Germany. If it is not forbidden in ACBL an alert must be made if the call has an unusulal meaning. Some meaning MUST be considered as ususual.

“IMO penalty doubles … among strong players in NA” That is totally irrelevant. A weak two is certainly not standard anymore, but must be alerted (in Germany). Alerts were not invented to protect strong players.

I don't understand your “challenge”. You can bid 3N if this is the most logical alternative to pass. If you state that after BIT you can make any bid which is in some way a logical alternitive, you are wrong.
April 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom, for 3N to be LEGAL the bid must stand out over other LAs, not the other way around. Ken, whatever you are thinking about, it shows that you don't have a clear bid. Your partner as W has a clear bid: pass if penalty is agreed, 4 if t/o is agreed. In both cases you may have your reasons for bidding 3N, but it is definetly not the most logical bid. After the BIT you must bend obver backwards to avoid the impression that your call is in any way influenced by pards hesitation. That's the law (and a good one) period. I vote for 3 X made because negative doubles were not marked on the convention card. In Germany penalty doubles after opening 1N are standard an d need not be alerted, t/o must be alerted. This may be different in other jurisdictions.
April 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My observation is that a lot of people reduce the requirements for an overcall because of the weak nature of 1N. Do your statistics consider “human nature”. If you preempt you cannot be sure to reach your best contract, neither can your opps. WNT or KNT can be considered as very descriptive preempts.
April 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thinking is part of the game, making use of what it implies is a crime. Obviously opps haven't discussed this. The BIT suggests that E is unsure if X is penalty or t/o. W knows that E is unsure about the meaning of X. If t/o W should bid 4H, which could be a catastrophy if X is penalty. The reverse is also true: if X is penalty W should pass, which could be bad if X is t/o. Of course W could have this line of thought with or without BIT. After the BIT 3N is out of the question.
April 16, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top