Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ronald Kalf
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
S is worth 3, but 4 is acceptable. Of I deemed the hand worth 4 I would prefer 4 because in my book 4 shows a concentration of cards in the blacks, but that is OUR agreement. 5 asks for -control and S dutifully obliges. N is the main culprit.
Dec. 26, 2019
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
deleted
Dec. 26, 2019
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted other, I agree with Richard on 1 and Ron on 2 but both weren‘t electable. I also voted 50/50 because this pair should discuss their methods.
Dec. 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5 Lackwood.
Dec. 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Frohe Weihnachten
Vrolijk Kerstfeest
Thanks for my favorite Chrismas song
Dec. 25, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AFAIK X after multi and p/c as t/o is accepted defense.
Dec. 24, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apart from 3 better being natural, it would show a stopper if not. There are still 2 possible enemy suits in which case one shows stoppers.
Dec. 24, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Keep it simple: N should X 2. Keep it simplest: N should bid 3 over 2. So worst bid is 3. After 3 keep it simple is 3N, should have a play. 3 is second worst after that no recovery possible
Dec. 24, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
„ACBL has good reason for banning it in less experienced fields.“ IMHO there is never a good reason to ban any convention or treatment. We hope that the less experienced players get to play in more experienced fields and then?
Dec. 24, 2019
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMO 3 is not weaker then 2M, both show a max 1N with good s. 2M shows a stopper, 3 denies an M-stopper, so probably values in . The splinter doesn‘t change the upper limit of 2, it merely describes openers hand: Hey I‘m short and you don‘t have a stopper, looks like no wasted values, how about 5.
Dec. 24, 2019
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMO 3 cannot be FG as both pards are limited. S could have :xxx, ;QJx, :Qx, :Axxxx and bid 4 to show -stop but not control. N bids 5 as here, but passes with say :x, :xx, :AKQxxx, :KQJx. S should bid 4 on the way to 5 with A, but 5 with K.
4 NF is consistent with the way we define quasi-gameforcing: if we pass 3N by because of a missing stopper we bid 4m and partner passes 4m without control in the unstopped suit unless substantial extras. With neither stop nor control we already have 2 losers and cannot afford another in 5m. Same here: without control in there are 2 losers in plus A. You may call that „stopping on a dime“, but IMO with a good reason.
Dec. 24, 2019
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Dec. 24, 2019
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jim, why would you want to set ? OP describes 2 as -fit (in his first comment). Since 1-2 is old-fashioned you cannot have a better -fit then the already established -fit.
Dec. 23, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why did pard bid 3? 1) doubt about 3N, well then so have I or 2) slam interest, in which case my hand will not be a disappointment despite the possible wastage in either or . 3/ still keep 3N in the picture, but do you really want to play 3N with a singleton opposite KTx?.
Dec. 23, 2019
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course, edited!
Dec. 23, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Piotr (who probably has more experience playing against this 2M then any other replying here) concerning Defensive Methode. This is what I play too. X now would be penalty, so I had to vote 3. I‘d have bid 3 initially because IMHO not strong enough for X then 3. However 100% Polish players doubling is a strong argument. I guess 3 over X has to be on 5 and then I can bid 4.
Dec. 23, 2019
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Dec. 23, 2019
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This would be even more interesting with the majors reversed. Would 1-1N; 2-2; 3 also be a splinter?
Dec. 23, 2019
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Dec. 23, 2019
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
„ My preferred agreement is that 4 of a minor is not forcing if a stopper search has found an unstopped suit.“ That is my agreement too, but does it apply here? There are other bids possible to get us to 3N. IMO this agreement is off after a splinter.
Dec. 23, 2019
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How can I judge if S has „much less than what he promised“ without knowing what 5 and the various alternatives (P, XX, 4N) mean. If we are talking about what was promised with 3 I‘d say a 5.5-loser hand is more than a minimum in offense and 1.5QT is an absolute minimum in defense. I guess That is exactly what 5 shows. Does that mean I blame N for not bidding 6? By no means, I‘m okay with the bidding. Timo, you can‘t winn‘em all.
Dec. 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, sorry my mistake.
Dec. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, I couldn‘t have said it better.
Richard, sorry to say so, but this is yet another one where 2N is the least attractive contract of all.
Dec. 18, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top