Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ronald Kalf
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I sketched a solution where opener shows min/max and responders 2nd bid differentiates between balanced and 5+ unless opener has a very distributional hand. The only disadvantage is that 1M-2;2N can be balanced, 5M-4 or a mediocre 6M, sometimes wrongsiding 3N.
Sept. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1h-1 often on 5, if FG always. 1M-2 balanced or natural. Then 2 any minimum (other maximum) followed by 2 balanced, 2 + (independent of M!), others natural with . Openers 2 shows 5M-4OM, 2 5M-4, 2N waiting (I know rightsiding), becaus 3X distributional.
Sept. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Penalty!!!
Sept. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 2 is the abomination that people call „relay“, 4N is RKCB. If 2 is negative 3N is to play and 4N „didn‘t you hear me“.
Sept. 3
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Sept. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would rate this hand as 8- (6,95 K&R). To weak for a light 3rd hand opening, to strong for a psyche, wrong structure for WT/Multi.
Sept. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Christopher, I play IJS AND F1N. 1M-3m shows a good suit. With a misfit opener simply passes, which will usually be the right contract. I still have 1M-1N; 2M-3m available. Now 3 if non-forcing because opener has already limited his hand and responder has a broken suit that will not play very well opposite a small stiff.
Sept. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With the bad hand your main goal is to play 3something or push them onne level. If they bid you have achieved your goal. With a good hand you want your partner to know what your suit is.
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Alan, we would lead K from Kx but lowest from Kxx.
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As always very interesting, especially the part about deducting that declarer must have K. At the level where I play, there are not many who would consider supressing -support for that reason.
We lead 3rd/5th but low from a small doubleton (any comments on that?), so I would play the J if pard leads 2. In this case the lead would be 6 which I can read as 3crd and I would play the A.
Sept. 2
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also play a lot of GB2N, but in this case an inv+ raise. 1-(1)-X-(2); 2N would be GB2N.
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In solemn moments such as this I have put my trust and all my faith in partner (from Memories by Leonard Cohen).
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rumour has it that Fischbein is gaining popularity.
Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Other, I don’t play ELC. The hand is perfect for Raptor.
Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Timo, you would have to alert that Pass is potentially strong.
Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As Frances and Peter pointed out Pass then Double can‘t be right on a strong hand. The only sensible use for it seems to be penalty. I‘m not sure about Frances‘ suggestion of 3 then double. Pard could interpret it as penalty. We haven‘t yet discussed it, but it would fit other agreements. I‘l start with X. Like for Henk Jan it shoes a balanced hand to weak for 2N or strong. Pard is not going to bid high in because of that. With a real t/o of one of the majors we bid the other.
Aug. 31
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Aug. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Double by N would be penalty. Lebensohl is the only further agreement.
Aug. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And I don‘t get what you are driving at. Of course your hand qualifies for 3, but how can W have two side quens if E has both side queens? Your cue is FG, mine is not. We can try for 3N and stil stop in 4 if we have two losers in opps suit and both ate minimum, you cannot. Of course if one of us has a singleton or added values there is no guarantee that we make 5, but you don‘t have that guarantee either plus you are forced to bid 5 more often then I.
Aug. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your question is not consistent, there seem to be 4 pointed queens in the deck. You can answer the question yourself. Do you expect zero losers outside ? Anyway, if you play 4 as slam try, you have no choice but to bid 5 with a hand where I can stop in 4. So even if I sometimes will get to high, it will not be as often as you at the price of having one less bid for a slam try. Each to his own, but for me it‘s worth the price.
Aug. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMO the forcing fraction misses two important points:
1) 4 is not to play, it is merely non-forcing
2) if the partnership neither has a stopper nor a singleton, we cannot have losers in any of the other suits.
We usually do not bid 4m or pass over partners 4m with a singleton and/or extras.
Aug. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Take a look at Richard Pavlicek‘s deal analysis (http://www.rpbridge.net/8j25.htm). 14+11 gives 8.60, 17+8 8.54 tricks on avarage. Not much of a difference.
Aug. 26
.

Bottom Home Top