Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ronald Kalf
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If they are world class players I can only conclude that N purposely formulated his question in this way, hoping to extract information that s/he is not entitled to.
May 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And the wind cries…DOUBLE
May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Note: this is what I WOULD play in a system with a strong 2, not what I DO play with my regular partner.
April 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, with the reds the bidding in my and Kokish‘s solution is 2-2;2-2;3. The problem with Kokish occurs if opener has the rounded suits.
April 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is why I prefer the „Kokish Interchange“ from 1-2N;3/ and not the one from his 2-2;2-2. I have no idea why he doesn‘t use the same method in both cases. The notes do not give reasons for any of his ideas, but I have incorporated some of those in our system.
April 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am a simple soul: once we have an 8crd M-fit M will be trumps (although correcting 6 to 6 would be conceivable). I do understand that 3N could be an option, but prefer serious/non-serious, with which we have good experience, especially in cases like this where both parties are still unlimited.
April 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So do I
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I admit that I can‘t remember playing 1N XX, but I do remember lots of lucrative doubles of their runouts. After XX both opener and responder can X for penalty.
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A cue bid doesn‘t necessarily show a control, compare Michaels Cue Bid or Western Cue Bid.
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
XX is business, 2 is or 2 suits without , if they don’t double fine, if they do XX is -, 2 is - and 2 is -. If responder passes, openers XX shows +another and 2 is as responders 2. All other bids from responder or opener show 5. Opener passes with any 4-3-3-3.
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Mike, but in this case (and some others) there is another Kokish invention that is even better. The original idea (from the Kokish-Kraft notes) is after 1-2N, where 2N shows the old-fashioned balanced game force (13-15 or 18+). He interchanges the meaning of 3 and 3, 3 shows 5-4 with 3 setting and a cue setting . 3 shows a -onesuiter. We use this „Kokish Interchange“ in a number of situations. Kokish plays 2-2;2-2;? …3 onesuiter, …3 - and …3 as -. Your choice!
April 29
Ronald Kalf edited this comment April 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see what you mean. Yes, N must have a control, because S denied one with 4. Obviously continuing slam investigation doesn’t make sense if N doesn‘t control either.
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If -control is the issue, the bid is 4N (Lackwood for )
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit, I am surprised that you advocate splintering with an ace. Please explain your reasoning.
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A reverse is a second bid a in higher suit then the first bid suit. A reverse usually (but not necessarily always) shows extra strength because partner is forced one level higher with preference for the first, usually longer, suit. Then someone invented the „high reverse“, which is not a reverse at all, because the suits are bid in their natural order (higher first, lower second). Now we seem to have a third reverse, which is a true reverse (lower suit first, then higher suit), but is non-reverse because it doesn‘t show a „big hand“. But extra strength is (in some but not all cases) only a logical consequence of bidding suits in reverse (=non-natural) order. I am confused.
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In situations like this we play 4/ as a slam try in /. As for 4N, no comment.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So do I. Now where did I get the idea? Ah, I remember: from you:-)
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 is a clear 1. 2 is a pass, but sometimes I can‘t resist bidding 1. With 3 I‘m glad that I can bid 1N showing 5crd plus a 4crd M.
April 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Blackwood fo sure, but that could be another poll.
April 14
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4X-1 (DD)
April 13
Ronald Kalf edited this comment April 13
.

Bottom Home Top