Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ronald Kalf
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I too use Danny Kleinman’s method for hand evaluation, then add points for length (not shortness!), but the first LP (for 5) only if the suit contains 3+hcp.
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Our QUC bidding:
1-1; 3-4; 4N-5; 5-5; 6-7
1 = Polish, 1 because of MA(jors)FI(rst)A(lways), 3 = 19+, 4+,
4 = N takes over captaincy with Kickback, 4N = 3,
5 = Q ask, 5 = Q, not K,
5 = K ask, 6 = K, not K.
No way to find out about length, so 7 seems better then 7N.
May 9
Ronald Kalf edited this comment May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure if this would fit in Grumpy Club. In my QUC we open 1 with both minors either way and a 1-opener never has secondary unless strong. Therefore we can use -rebids to show the strong variant.
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course N should abide by the law and bid 3, but it all started with S‘s 2-underbid. Hence mostly S.
May 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree
May 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With as the minor 3 sets because we can bid both pointed suits to show stoppers. Here we cannot show a -stopper naturally and need to improvise. Per our agreement S would bid an artificial 4 (in stead of 3) to unconditionally set .
4 does not deny 6crd , because 4 is non-forcing, whereas 4 id forcing.
May 6
Ronald Kalf edited this comment May 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Deleted, too fast again.
May 5
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
.

Bottom Home Top