Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Stefan Olausson
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 39 40 41 42
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or play 5542-openings, and open balanced 15-19 with 1.

Then you can play, either
1-1 with all weak hand without major (as above), or
use transfer responses with 1-1 without major.
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One method I have seen (but never played) is, with balanced hands, people open 2+minors, and select opening-suit depending on the hcp strength.

For example, with weak-1NT you could open,
15-17 => 1.
18-19 => 1.

Thus, 1-1NT-2NT shows 18-19.
After 1 you can use 1 on all weak hands without 4+major.
Thus, 1-1X-1NT shows 15-17.
Dec. 14
Stefan Olausson edited this comment Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> “Other natural bids are ‘alertable when opponents would expect otherwise’”

if the jumpshift is thus limited to 15 or 16hcp, isnt that reason to alert it under this rule?
Nov. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> All 4 players could carry their own personal bridgemate or similar electronic device and put down contract.

Excellent proposal!
Or at least 2 devices for each of North and East.

Sometimes, thinking about the last play or bidding, I approve the result kind of mechanically and then don't remember if I really checked the score….
Sometimes North enters the score and has already OK'ed it himself… shouldnt happen but it does…

Would be much lower errors with two separate entries :)
Nov. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> “Tournament hands tend to favor this bidding method as they are pre-dealt to have interesting features.”

Where did you get that idea from?

It's illegal to deal anything but random-deals in tournament-play.
Nov. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> I would expect Partner to continue with the ♠T upon gaining the lead.

Why?
From his viewpoint, u cud have AKx and he has JTx.
Nov. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> “We found that we almost never needed a negative double.”

You never need a neg-X after 1M-(2m) ?

That sounds questionable…
Nov. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
-MOVED-

ps. Why is there still no DELETE button?
Nov. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why?
Nov. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We recently started playing transfers after opps' takeout-double,
and also after their tangent-bid overcall.

Examples:

1D-(X)-
XX = 4+hearts.
-1H = 4+spades.
-1S = Denies 4card M. Some values and “transfer to 1NT”.
-1NT = 5+clubs, etc.

1H-(1S)-X = Some values and “transfer to 1NT”
-1NT = 5+clubs.
-2C = 5+diams.
-2D = Invitational Heart-support.

The main advantage is that when we win the contract,
overcaller has to lead away from his honours, often “into the dark”.

It's actually more rare than one might think,
that these situations occur, but has worked fine, so far.

We also play transfers after
1S-(2H), and 1H-(2S), so:
-X = Both minors, or strong hand.
-2NT = 5+clubs.
-3C = 5+diams.

1H-(2S)
-3D = H-support, invite+
-3H = Support, less than invite.

1S-(2H)
-3D = (undefined)
-3H = S-support, invite+
Nov. 7
Stefan Olausson edited this comment Nov. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>“2NT should be a 4 card invitational+ ♥ raise”

Provided 1 is 5+,
it doesn't make sense to require 4cd support here,
unless you specify some other bid for 3cd support inv+.
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>“Since G/B 2NT here could, presumably, be ”bad with ♣s, ♦s, or ♥s"

Isn't that normally called Lebensohl?

G/B-2NT rather refers to opener's rebid?
Sept. 2
Stefan Olausson edited this comment Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course, you can always explore it,
but if it turns out there is no fit,
(say opener is 4-1-3-5 and responder 2-4-4-3 or similar)
where are you going?

You often end up scrambling into a lousy higher partial than the majority,
who open 1, and then play in 1NT.

Of course, they will also find a 4-4 major fit, that you may miss if you Pass 2.

In my experience, this is a frequent recurring painpoint of such system.
It works much better if 2 is always 6+suit and denies 4M.
Sept. 1
Stefan Olausson edited this comment Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> 5. 2♣ opening bids - including the 4 card major or not

No, you don't want 4card majors in 2.
Esp at matchpoints, it's downright terrible.
Unless responder has GF values, it's an insoluble dilemma
whether to explore 4-4 major fit or not.
And it keeps coming up too frequently.

Recently, I started playing a stong-1 canapé-system,
where this is elegantly solved.
You open your 4-card major suit and may then show a longer club suit next round, if appropriate.

I really like it.
Sept. 1
Stefan Olausson edited this comment Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, for the link, Craig.

That's some interesting data to digest :)
Aug. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And also comes to mind, a different quite interesting thread a couple of years ago, by the way….

https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/74642-new-hand-evaluation-method/

https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/74773-bidding-system-based-on-enhanced-hand-evaluation/

This wasn't double-dummy, but actual results from real play.

My own assumption was that declarers who *bid* 3NT on a specific deal, would be *more likely* to score 9+ tricks, than declarers who stopped in a partial on the *same* deal.

Other people argued that *defence* would be more likely to score 5+tricks if declarer was in 3NT, than those defending against 1NT/2NT contracts on the *same* deal.
But that I could refute by statistical analysis of the materials – on average, declarers had an advantage.

By same reasoning, I would assume declarers will consistently score *better* than DD-results, and defenders worse – and considerably more than just 3-6%.

This, since declarer generally has a considerably better overview of the deal (what is going on, the goals at hand, etc), than defenders.

And additionally, in leading to trick 1, defenders can only do *worse* than double-dummy – rarely better (the only exception, I think, being some unlikely psychological capers that happen to induce a declarer error).
Aug. 28
Stefan Olausson edited this comment Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>“But the amount of this bias is pretty well known (around 3% - 6% for 3NT contracts–closer to the lower number when hands are balanced).”

3%-6%, compared to what? Actual results from real competitions, I assume?

But where is the actual source/investigation/evidence of such claim?
I'd sure be interested to read it.
(Those percentages sound suspiciously low to me, but I cannot tell without actual statistical materials…)

At least, it seems the percentage would be different in a very strong field vs average club-games…
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What means “clipping boards”?

Never heard that, sorry…
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Only if everyone at the table is playing double dummy, I think?
Including the lead to trick 1…

:)
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another possibility is to have 1NT show an invitational hand (without major, of course) opposite the weak NT-range.

So, if playing the std 15-17 1NT-opening, it would then show invitational vs 12-14 – i.e. ca 11-12 hcp or so.

The advantage of this, is that you can stop in 1NT when pard is minimum and rejects the invitation, rather than play at the 2-level.

In practice, it is also very rare that this situation occurs, though.

This agreement also requires that you have some other bid available, when holding a weaker hand ca 6-10 hcp with only 4 or 5 clubs.
Either 1-1 if you play transfer-responses to 1.
Or you need a (semi)artificial 1-1 that does not promise diamonds.
Aug. 27
Stefan Olausson edited this comment Aug. 27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 39 40 41 42
.

Bottom Home Top