Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ronald Kalf
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
„Sadly, I think most don't think to discuss that issue much.“ …until it‘s to late. But at least we discuss it AND come to an agreement afterwards. I guess that‘s what makes a good partnership.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Craig, he wouldn‘t have a problem admitting forgetfulness of a recently added agreement and neither would I. I posted it to support your point of view. He compared it to 1M-2M which is stronger then usual in our system. My pov is that with a real max he is not obliged to bid 3.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
„There is very litle “gain” from carefully choosing between a “good 3X” vs. a “bad 2NT” followed by correcting 3♣ to 3X if partner doesn't have the same idea as you do about what hands might be suitable for each category.“ Absolutely agree. We play GB2N in lots of situations (see my comment upthread) and have recently taken up GB-X. Yesterday in a BBO practice match we had this bidding: 1-(3)-3-AP. Pard had QXx, AKQxx, KTx, xx. I thought he might have forgotten GB-X, but his view was that he needs more to accept the invite. My reasoning was that he should accept with a hand that would accept uncontested 1M-1N;2-3M. We now have this agreement.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In a competitive situation 2N is GB with the following exceptions:
1) if pass is forcing, 2N is natural
2) if pard’s last bid showed a 5crd M, 2N is fit-showing with high ODR
3) if 2N-bidder already had the opportunity to bid GB2N, but didn‘t 2N is scrambling or minors
4) if 2N-bidder has limited his hand within a 3 point range, 2N is scrambling or minors
5) if it is 200% clear to both that there is no game, 2N is scrambling or minors
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What else?
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A perfect analysis, but who would expect anything less from Kit. The beauty is that you can apply the reasoning to your own system and draw your conclusions.
June 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Randy, You are not alone…but of course we are still a minority.
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMO it’s good that Eugene observes the limits of what can be written on BW. I stopped reading Mr. Wilsmore‘s witch-hunt stories anyway.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Anytime we are forced to the 3-level in responders suit. This includes 1m-(p)-1-(2);X as well as 1m-(p)-1-(3);X. If opener can bid 2 in responders suit, this shows 3 and we bid 4th suit with 4. This is based upon an idea from Robson&Segal for a WNT environment.
We decided to keep the support double after seeing Kit‘s vote.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I changed my mind. Our book says support double and we‘ll keep it that way.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I’d say this is another example of the GB-X introduced by Kit in „avoid the ruffs“
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Taking this GB-X one step further, I‘d expect that X then 3N asks for a stopper. Consequently if the X is on 3 pard should bid 3N with and 4 without stopper. This treatment would make the famous Thrump-double superfluous or am I missing something?
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Something is missing from my comment, it should read:
If double is invitational you have to respond paradox style. So (2♦)-X-(3♦)-X;(P)-3 don‘t accept -inv and…-3 accept -inv, not -inv. Kit‘s method is superior because it‘s more important to show your suit if you want to invite. With a merely competitive hand you have already achieved your goal if opps bid one higher.
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If double is invitational you have to respond paradox style. So (2)-X-(3)-X
June 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Once a month my regular partner plays in another club and I play in our club with someone who is available. More often then not this is an advancing player or even a beginner and my advice - based upon what I see from their declare play - is „make a plan before you play to the first trick“. If this plan is based upon counting losers or winners is secondary.
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would you bid 2N without a -stopper?
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yet another of your good ideas which is now part of our agreements.
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Independent of other agreements, NO, NO, NEVER.
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
„We have found that responsive doubles at the 3-level aren't particularly useful.“ How about 4-level, responsive or emphasizing penalty?
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great Job Kit and team.
June 7
.

Bottom Home Top