Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ronald Kalf
1 2 3 4 ... 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 ... 69 70 71 72
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Stefan, I didn't write that I agree with the policy, but it is the reality. Why should I put a lot of energy in the design of a system that I cannot play? THAT is my point. I played Regres for a while as it was not forbidden. There is a lot to memorize, in fact more then my then partner was willing to invest. It is not just about obstructing opponents, but of course opps have to tune their defense. Same as against Multi, Tartan, nebulous D etc. Rules and regulations differ from country to country, making it even more difficult. From what I read, ACBL is most restritictive, but here (in Germany) I cannot play NTO (1N for take-out) because a 1N-overcall must either be natural or promise an anchor suit. I designed my system compliant with German regulations.
Sept. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The same advantages as in 1st/2nd/3rd seat. The biggest advantage of WNT is when you DON'T open 1N. Your minor suit openings are either strong in distribution or in high cards. You have to understand that your NT-range is an integral part of your bidding system. Changing the range also changes the rest of your system. Although I take inferences from the fact that pard has a passed hand, I do not eant to play 2 or 3 or even 6 (taking vul. Into account) different bidding systems.
Sept. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Taking this together with some other posts from the WBG I'd say that calling a director before, during or after the game will not help you anyway.
Sept. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 with a one-suiter, 1N Raptor, X 15+, 1D both M but not necessarily 5-5.
Sept. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand the enthusiasm about forcing pass. Yes, it has a lot of merits, but you will not have many opportunities to practise. Playing different systems depending upon vulnerability adds another level of complexity in design and strain on memory. At 65 I say one system is enough!
Sept. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I never commented Oren Kriegel's post because there were to many comments already. Now I take the opportunity to post my view of the matter. First of all you adequately explained your behaviour for which you have my fullest understanding. Let me add that everytime when I write about the folly of alerting, I get beaten by the (majority of the) ACBLers with arguments like “full disclosure”. It seems strange that that a pair representing US does not adhere to the holy (ACBL-)law of “full disclosure”. Even stranger that you get beaten up for insisting on “full disclosure”. Congratulations for your achievements. I wished you had won against Monaco also, but not against the Dutch (see my profile for an explanation).
Sept. 21, 2016
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Sept. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cannot like this often enough!
Sept. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You did not give 5crd M, 4crd M with/without canapé as options. IMO this should be the primary choice. I assume however that we are talking about a 5crd M system.

The lower your strongest opening, the lower the limit for the strongest but also for other openings can be. Therefore it is desirable to make 1 the strongest opening. Not being able to bid a natural 1 leads to a nebulous 1. A mixed 1 avoids this because (part of) the -hands can be opened 1. The disadvantage of opening 2 with 5-4M is that you may lose a 4-4-fit. As a consequence open 1 with those hands. Also open 5-4 with 1 making 2 always 6(+). Now 1-1M; 2M can be bid with 12 hcp and 4-3-3-3 distribution as well as with 14 hcp and 5-4-3-1 distribution, a playing strength of 17. A weak NT solves this problem because now opener has either extra hcp or extra distribution. Those were my reasons for choosing “An Unassuming Club” as the starting point for my system.

A homegrown system is a lot of work. Working out the opening bids and responses is not more then 10% of it. You are mostly on your own. You are bound to make changes after having some pratical experience. And it's fun.

I also like Kaplan-Sheinwold and Roman Club, but these are from the 70s and need to be heavily modernized. This can only be done without disrupting the system by or with the help of someone who more experience with the respective system then I have.
Sept. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It certainly isn't a standard fit non-jump, but given that you do not want pard to lead it is better then 3.
Sept. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rosencranz' research supported his (Super-)CONFI: with 2 balanced hands you don't ask for aces, you need 10 out of 12 controls for a small and all 12 for a grand slam. I extend this principle for 4-4-4-1 opposite a balanced hand (9/11 out of 11). Knowing the expected #aces is important when playing Italian cues (A and K up the line) plus D.I. (Declaring you control all suits, Inquiring about extras). You do not bid 4N resp. sign-off over pards 4N with less then the expected #aces (more flexible then Turbo IMO).
Sept. 20, 2016
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Sept. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have opened 1, but that would spoil a nice story:-))
Sept. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Count me in for fit-showing. I cannot possibly want to “save” pard if I cannot overcall some number of .
Sept. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In both cases there was enough bidding space to set up a forcing pass situation.
Sept. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, second mix-up in one thread. My last word: I agree with Louis.
Sept. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4 creates a forcing pass situation. N would pass then pull the X with a slam invitation. S has no reason to bid slam on his own.
Sept. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can't make any sense of the bidding. If 2 is precision, S is to blame. If 2 is your strongest opening N is to blame.
Sept. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You voice a common misunderstanding about LoTT. LoTT is not a tool to make game decisions. An example: You have a total of 8 trumps, opps have 10, a total of 18. If you have game in a major, 8 tricks remain for your opps, 3 down 1. Not a good deal! LoTT helps you to make partscore decisions. Apart from that, I agree that X shows a hcp-oriented hand and 3R a distribution-oriented hand.
Sept. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am in category 2b (penalty offer) of “some pairs”
Sept. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If this is your only problem you should be playing in Wroclaw:-)
Sept. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BTW, congratualations to the Dutch Team for raching 2 semi-finals.
Sept. 14, 2016
1 2 3 4 ... 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 ... 69 70 71 72
.

Bottom Home Top