Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ronald Kalf
1 2 3 4 ... 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 ... 69 70 71 72
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here's another idea: Why don't we alert leads and carding?
Aug. 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another fine example of the folly of alerting. The convention card shows the meaning of 2, no need to ask, no UI, no problem. As it is Aviv has the correct solution. BTW is the name if a convention adequate description of a bid? Why in heavens name is Ogust not alertable?
Aug. 31, 2016
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Aug. 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I started playing bridge in 1970 in th e Netherlands ACOL was widely used. There were 3 basic variants vulnerability dependent NT, 16-17 or 10-12 by the wild young ones. Also we had “British” choosing the 4crd by the rebid and “Dutch” bidding 4crds up the line. Then there was K-S wit a 12-14 NT and 5crd M. All properly documented on the convention card. Some freaks (like me) played exotic system like Roman Club. Then came Precision, Regres (a forgotten and now forbidden relay system with a strong pass) and more. Again all was properly documented on the convention card, which everybody reads. Until 1978, when I stopped playing Bridge, everything was fine.
Cut.
In 2012 I restarted Bridge (now in Germany) and found bidding boxes (they are ok, even if slamming the X card on the table gives the same information as a LOUD X). Plus I had to learn to “alertieren”. You won't even find the word in a German dictionary. The rules are different from country to country. I don't think you will be able to find many people who know the complete alerting procedure. Since the beginning of 2016 X is on the list of potential alertable calls, but I haven't met a TD able to explain when a X is alertable and when not for all cases.
Are we really better of with alerts. I would rather go back to the old days where convention cards where used and red even in club games.
Aug. 31, 2016
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Aug. 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are right, extra values only if you seldom raise on 3. KS allows raising on 3 only with the value of 15+. IMO this is sound, the real value of WNT is when you DON'T open 1N. 1-1; 1N is different, because in KS you don't open 1N with 5crd M. The rebid shows 12-16 and could even have a singleton . Contrary to 1m-1M opener is invited to raise with 3. 1-1N does not deny 4crd . Of course I alert this 1N-rebid. I do NOT alert that a raise could be on 3, althoug this is also debateble.
Aug. 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry, IMO we're taking full disclosure to far. I play 1N 12-14 and hold Kxx, Ax, Jxx, AQxxx and open, guess what, 1. The bidding continues -1; 1N-3N. Pard explains 1N-rebid as 15-17. 3N makes because RHO could see that I must have at least Q in stead of the J for my 15 count.. Should the score be adjusted because we didn't explain that we can upgrade 14 count with a good 5crd to 15?
Richard, 15-16 or 15-17 is not a big difference for the defense, especially if you consider possible up-/downgrades. 12-16 is rather unusual, I'd say. That is something I would alert. In our system 1-opening is always unbalanced, so it's obvious that a 1N-rebid is not balanced. We alert, because a) this is an unusual concept and b) we must explain what it shows.
Aug. 30, 2016
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Aug. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you play 1N 12-14, 1m-1M; 1N shows 15-17, this is obvious. 1m-1M; 2M shows extras either in high cards or in distribution, this is equaly obvious. Anyone to whom this is not obvious will not be able to use the information even if I give it. Why bother? The problem with all those alerts is that people are getting lazy and stop thinking, which is not good if you play bridge.
Aug. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hard to explain without pratical examples. I red about it more then 40 years ago, probaly in a book about Roman Club. AFAIK Edgar Kaplan, my all time bridge hero, reccomended it too, but I'm not sure if it is mentioned in “How to play winning bridge”
Aug. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kieran, first to your last post: I didn't say that D.I. works here, this is one rare case where RKCB by S is good. Concerning Italian cuesbids and D.I. (also invented by Italians), it works very good. There is still the 5-level to find out about 1st vs. 2nd. Also if pard does NOT bid D.I. the bidding sequence usually tells you if a control is missing or if there is concern about the number of aces or trump quality. I admit that it takes time to get used to it. Even though my partner was new to the idea, the only misunderstandings at the beginning where when I bid D.I. and he thought RKCB. Now we have a simple rule: The one who cues can no longer ask for aces.
Aug. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why should N bid 4N? He is not in a position to be captain (as he has shown). Could he have anything less? I don't think so, he has a minimum with good distribution.
Aug. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1: absolutely reasonable. 2: we have an explicit agreement that if 1 or 1 is alerted our defense against artificial openings applies. If your agreement is specifically for a precision 1, I would assume Michaels in this case, natural otherwise. 3: probably a correct, but unfair ruling.
Aug. 30, 2016
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Aug. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BTW: in my partnership you can no longer use RKCB after you cue. 4N then is D.I., saying we control all suits and asking for features not already shown. Ah, and of course we cue the Italian way, showing 1st and 2nd round controls.
Aug. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not normally an advocate of RKCB, but if you have it in your arsenal then use it at the appropriate time. S has a clear RKCB, contrary to N who has absolutely no business asking for aces. N has shown his hand and should bid 4, giving S a second chance. As it is this is a further example of misusing RKCB. The bridge world would be better off without it.
Aug. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 by E is non-forcing in my u/u. Since I want to get my in, I also bid 3 if it's forcing.
Aug. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
S has a source of tricks that N doesn't know about and should bid 5 to show it. In my partnership N could bid 4N as D.I. (we control every suit, do you have something that I don't know about) over 4. S then should bid 6 and N would be very tempted to bid 7. I don't say that I would bid 6 ATT, but that is the right bid. Give pard one of the red kings and grand is almost cold.
Aug. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BWS 2001 is 15 years old! There is nothing more recent then that?
Aug. 27, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I double, 2N is neither scrambling nor natural. We play Lebensohl.
Aug. 27, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3. With a stiff I expect pard to bid 3N or 4 with AK of and bid 6 over 3N, 7 over 4. Anything else agrees . I will start cueing and give pard a chance to cue twice. If he does, I bid 7 else 6. 4/N sounds good, but not good enough to change my vote. IMO 3 is better then 2 because now pard can infer that I don't need much to play in and that 3N is not an option.
Aug. 27, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That could be a good starting point if you don't want to sacrifice 2. The problem with Ron-style is 2-3; 4 (or even worse 2-3N; 4). You are on the 4-level and don't have a fit yet. You don't know if pard has a self-suficient suit or a fit in your secondary 4crd suit. If you bid a new suit is this natural or a supporting cue-bid. Ron-style is very good if opener is balanced or 3-suited and of course if he has a fit. The real benefit is if responder does NOT have a semi-positive. How about 2 semi-positive with a suit and 2N semi-positive balanced? After 2 opener asks for the suit with 2N. In both cases 3 asks controls and 3/M/N(=) shows a self-sufficient suit.

PS: I have played Kaplan-Sheinwold for many years. They use control responses. 1m openings can be very strong and 2 with a minor tends to be one-suited.

PPS: In my Polish Club based system we can differentiate between fit-finding with 4crd M and 5crd M, balanced, one-suiters while still on the 2-level. This 19+ not 23+ however.
Aug. 27, 2016
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Aug. 27, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing a wrong-sided 2N with 18+0 if responder has a balanced bust sounds like fun.
Aug. 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I like to have a strong 2-opening, even more so because I can then open 1. I never understood 2 waiting. Both Ron's and Kit's (and similar) solutions have their merits, depending upon the type of 2. Ron's method is good with a balanced hand or shapes like 5-4-3-1, where your primary object is fit-finding. Even so, the semi-positives should be strong enough to play 4N, because opener might be forced to introduce his 5crd on the 4-level. Kit's solution is suited for an opener with a self-sufficient suit. Knowing the number of controls immediately gives you a good picture of your safety level. What is the solution if you don't want to play a strong club or polish type system? Use 2 and 2 as strong opening bids for the two types and not for differentiating strength. I haven't worked it out, because I don't need to. Maybe someone insisting upon a “natural” system will.
Aug. 25, 2016
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Aug. 25, 2016
1 2 3 4 ... 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 ... 69 70 71 72
.

Bottom Home Top