Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ronald Kalf
1 2 3 4 ... 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 ... 81 82 83 84
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Changed my vote to abstain. I wanted to bid 4N as to play.
Feb. 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you can't bid your s it's difficult. With my regular partner I have agreed that 4 is never ever Gerber. With pick-up partners the one and only thing I insist is that as a compromise 4 is only Gerber if bid directly over a natural NT-bid.
Of course if you don't have to open 2N with a strong balanced hand life is so much easier:
1-1; 2-2N; 3-3; 4-4; 4N-6. 2=19+, max 3, 2N=10+, 4, 3 asks, 3=5, then cue and D.I 6 showing good but no other unknown features.
Feb. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The systemic bid surely is 2N (which pard would have passed) but I did bid 3N assuming that we would need a swing. I was correct in sofar that our teammates did not bid the slam and our opponents made 4 where we were down 1 in 4. We had another swing were the opponents missed a 3N which we bid and made. This board did not produce a swing (3N-1 at both tables) and we lost the match 62-63. Had I just made my normal bid we would have won 67-63. Retrospective the best way to produce a swing would be to pass 2, hoping that neither 2N nor 3N makes. But probably I shouldn't be thinking about what happens at the other table at all.
Feb. 6, 2017
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Feb. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
All bids via 2 are stronger then direct bids, opener would only pass …2; 2-3 with minimum AND misfit.
Feb. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No offense taken:-)
Feb. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 is 100% FG in our system.
Feb. 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If a player, not a pair, comes up with this ad hoc it's a psyche and not illegal.
Feb. 3, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If there is nothing wrong with the bidding, there is something wrong with the bidders.
Feb. 3, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The word “fair” is used fairly often in this thread. I conclude: Fair is in the eye of the beholder. To put it more bluntly fair is what is of use to the person using the word “fair”.
How about this: We always have a problem when opps start bidding over our 1. It is only fair that overcalling a strong opening bid is forbidden.
Feb. 3, 2017
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Feb. 3, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You cannot play fast arrival opposite an unlimited partner because you waste to much bidding space. Bids that take away bidding space should give a precise picture of the hand.
Feb. 2, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my book it denies a top honour in (strength concentrated in and ), but not shortness.
Feb. 2, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2M waiting, not stopper 4th suit or support 3rd suit
4M 4M-5m strength concentrated in M and m, no control 4th suit
Jump 4 of 4th suit (or 3) same with control 4th suit
4NS double fit, usually 5-4-3-1
3NS and 3M are stronger then jump bids
Feb. 2, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nick, I can't even play the strong part of your system in Germany because this silly rule of 18.
Feb. 2, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My preferred “generic defence” against all kinds of transfers: X cards, interested in penalty, their suit take-out, pass then double their suit penalty, pass then bid their suit natural. But if they open strong (1N, 1 strong) Ghestem-like: 1/2N lowest, their suit “unbid suits”, X remaining combination.
Feb. 2, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Knowing if the honours fit is much more omportant then exact distribution.
Feb. 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Were I to play often against FP, I might come up with something else, but on the fly I agree with Jim. I would play our defense against a strong . Against the fert, I am with Nick. Easy enough for us, because we play Power Double and NTO anyway. If you have some basic principles against artificial bids it shouldn't be to difficult to build an on-the-fly-defense.
Feb. 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is not weak, it's a genuine opening bid for me.
Feb. 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the hand is a K stronger I double no matter if 1N is weak or strong.
Feb. 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play 1-1; 2-2 as FG or inv with 5-4. Opener is expected to bid 2 with some exceptions. After that I can bid 2N with the invitational hand or some other (usually natural) FG bid. The exception is 1444 or 04(54) where the bid is 2N which solves this particular problem.
Feb. 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In principle I agree. With a weak hand opposite our WNT I like to get out before being doubled. Still one question: Do your calculations take into account that when 4th hand doubles a) 2nd hand may save you and b) you can play 2m in stead of 3m if 2nd hand passes.
Feb. 1, 2017
1 2 3 4 ... 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 ... 81 82 83 84
.

Bottom Home Top