Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ronald Kalf
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have to revise my original comment above: childish behaviour by E. I hope s/he got at least a strong warning.
May 7
Ronald Kalf edited this comment May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry Kit, but I don‘t understand. Isn‘t it better to double 2 expecting opener to double 2M with 3 or 4 then to pass then double 2M with 3 forcing the partnership to play 3m in what could be a Moysian if opener has a doubleton? The other way around makes more sense to me. A double of 2 is cooperative, pass then double is penalty.
BTW I would double a natural or Landy 2 for penalty but not 2.
May 6
Ronald Kalf edited this comment May 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why does pard need a 4crd holding to X 2M? I don‘t think 2 will make even if pard has a doubleton only, but in that case we can make 2N and 2 is down one only. The same might happen if pard doubles 2 with only 3. If they have an 8crd fit there should be 15 total tricks.
May 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have doubled 2 as E. We hold the balance of power and I‘d be happy if pard can double 2M. I‘m even tempted to double 2 myself, although it‘s against the law if pard has a doubleton only.
May 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Raptor?
May 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Childish behaviour by both parties.
May 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That’s what I would call penalty-oriented: lower ODR then might be expected. Obviously mine is a minority interpretation. I have changed my vote accordingly. But then what do you mean by penalty-oriented? Trump tricks sitting before 4-bidder?
May 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play 2 as artificial. I also play MAFIA, so 3 shows longer , likely slam interest.
May 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I wrote this comment, there was only one Michael (Hargreaves):-))
May 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Michael, who voiced my interpretation of penalty-oriented.
May 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A lot of different sequences to learn, even if there is some logic behind it. My solution opener rebids the next steps with some exceptions. I call this quasi-lebensohl. Now responder shows through a consistent set of rules the reason for bidding 4SF (or 3SF which operates along the same rules). Reasons are: 1) missing stopper, 2) find 5-3-fit in M, 3) slam try in one of the suits. Main exception is when opener bids and opener may have . Then opener would bid 2nd step. Example: 1-1; 2-2. Opener has either 6crd or 5-4 and would bid 2N with the latter. Of course in 1-1;2-2 opener always has 6crd and will always bid 2N.
Edit: More carefull reading by me would have shown that OP has a totally differnet situation in mind. My ideas are for 1x-1y;2x/z.
May 2
Ronald Kalf edited this comment May 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Zirconia: 1-1;1N is balanced or , then 2 becomes 4SF
May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like „anything goes“ … when it comes to choosing systems, methods, conventions and even psyches, but only with full disclosure.
May 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Notihing to do with bridge, but I remember driving on holiday with my patents and about 40 miles from home when my mother said „Oh boy, I‘m not sure if I switched the oven off“ and my father replied „don‘t worry, I forgot to turn the water tap off“
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
moved
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Crazy, just crazy. I will say no more!
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First of all due to the screen, you don‘t know who caused the BIT. You can bid whatever you like. Assuming that 4 creates an FP, 6 is the minimum. Assuming that 5 would be some kind of LTTC, 6 is the maximum.
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
UI because if the BIT is not the issue, it‘s the UI created by the alert plus the explanation. But what if the unsystemic opening was on purpose? W knows that 3 will be alerted and probably explained. Even without the explanation W knows what E will expect. Shouldn’t s/he be allowed to make a further (unsystemic) bid? Nobody will object if I open an unsystemic weak two and bid later. IMO both situations are comparable. If EW are regular partners, I would expect that both know their agreements and not correct the result.
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
N can have hundreds of different hands that explain the bidding as well as the tank. All S (and EW) know is that N has one or more alternatives to his 3-bid. It doesn‘t make sense to pull two out of those hundreds unless OP has a hidden agenda. I want to know what OP is getting at before making my choice. Even then I will abstain if I don‘t agree with the agenda.
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Abstain! Why are those two the only choices?
April 28
.

Bottom Home Top