Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jef Pratt
1 2 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I honestly don't get this but I know from past experience, posting a bidding question meant for discussion rather than just a vote, then having to pull the post because a few people felt it wasn't really an article.

Is it really black and white and why is it a big deal? I'm guessing it has something to do with the purity of the feed, if one person does it, then everyone will? And less about an occasional poll masquerading a an article?

So there is no hybrid allowable between such posts?

Just curious…
March 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great format for a question. Thanks. (I changed my vote after giving the question more deliberation and reading the POVs; from 1N&1 is crazy, to 1 and 1NT is OK…but could easily be caucused to option 5)
March 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a bridge teacher, I always laugh in amazement, when new students say they want to learn bridge to exercise and sharpen their mind; but when they realize they have to actually think…LOL.
Dec. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My recollection of his hand was something similar to Axxxx Void QJxx Axxx. I'd have bid the diamonds before the clubs for economical rebid.
I do play rebid of major to show 6+ but I can't say for sure if that would have been our agreement.
My idea of the perfect auction would have been, 1-2; 3-3; 4(a)-5.

(a) picture complete

BTW, I didn't imagine a 5=0=4=4 for the very reason that I took 3 to show longer clubs than either red suit…I'm in a quandary if that is valid though.
Oct. 1, 2018
Jef Pratt edited this comment Oct. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed, it is pushy, and not my normal style.
Oct. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I added that information so that you would have the same information I did, which helped me try to envision his hand shape, as there was no agreement. I took 3 to show 4+ and didn't further limit his hand. I rebid 3 to hope to cater to the probable 5224 or 6??4. He was actually 5=0=4=4 with 11 points. He felt it was obvious for me to bid 4, says his expert friends all agreed, but I still didn't buy it was clear cut.
BTW, had I felt I could bid 3 I would have and in the end I should have anyways as he bid 3N going down 1, where 5 makes.
Oct. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
deleted
May 7, 2018
Jef Pratt edited this comment May 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I read this discussion, I hear little speculation about Gidwani, rather disappointment in the BOD, it's number, it's micromanagement of CEOs and misuse of it's granted powers.
May 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing strength, trick taking strength, defensive strength, HCP strength, distributional strength, combinatorial strength….
April 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suppose if responder felt that J2NT was the best way to solicit useful information from partner to explore for slam, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? He is in the steering wheel. J2nt is alerted, if asked, I'd say I expect my partner to have 4+ trumps and slam interest. Certainly we can agree that Kxxxx-x-x-T98xxx can take 5+ tricks with as trump?
April 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm still amazed how much of the bridge world, even players with achievement and status, are enculturated into the belief that HCP are the definitive and best way to define a hand and that hands have to be translated into hcps for full disclosure purposes. (As a precision player, how important they are to precision definitions, as well)
The new amendments to the ACBL Convention chart are an improvement to the current, but still, they simply use other tricks, rule of x and rule of y, to measure hand (offensive) strength rather than trick taking expectation and defensive strength.
HCP was a trick for the masses to help measure hands in this manor, as it is often difficult to evaluate trick taking potential, but the fact they've become what we believe is real, is bizarre to my mind.
Few people, at my level, understand why 13 = an opening hand, or how 25/26 points = game in real tricks,and nowhere anymore is this taught or even challenged. Just my little observation of the absurd nature of the world.
April 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, I was translating for standard natural system. Like David, playing a natural system, where 13(12) hcp is the norm, an opening hand can have as few 4 1/2 potential playing tricks (PPT), playing the edges of probabilities but 5 PPT is the expectation.
But, for precision situations, a invitational/limit raise would need to have the expectation of taking 5 tricks, as the openers only expect 4 (3.5 after looking left and right).
I suppose, not knowing, how many tricks Culbertson expected an opening hand to have? If it was only 4, then yes, a non-forcing invite would need 5 PPT. I would be afraid of missing game if the expectation for an opener was 5 as well.
I always enjoy your studious, historical and wide ranging intellectual contributions to the threads Richard.
April 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play and teach something similar, though not rigidly as the end decision is based on the number of tricks we can contribute, not on arbitrary HCP or even losers. We definitely don't announce our bids as Bergen as they are based on trick taking expectation and if asked we say, for the 4-card limit raise, “showing 4+ card support and the playing strength of 10-12 points.” And if asked what we mean, we simply state, that we expect to take 4 tricks and if partner can take more than 5, they should bid game or explore for slam.
Personally I'd like to speak only in terms of expected potential tricks and defense, but at my level of the game, opponents are dumbfounded and incredulous when I attempt to do so…they need everything dumb downed to HCP.
April 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When did we stop breathing real air? Was there such a thing as a limit bid before HCP?
April 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
14-16
April 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As should any keycard ask correct? But by the predominance of the 4NT bidders, I don't think they are proposing 4NT to play, with the heart fit. But I felt as Richard, at the table in the moment, that 4NT could also be taken as natural, and knowing we need to be in slam, bid the forcing 5. Only again, the majority appears to think 4NT is forcing and presumably asking and not a dilemma and that makes me curious to know what a good agreement is in this situation. It would have gotten us to 7.
April 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This was the auction that happened at the table and I was sitting with the south hand playing with a student who I've been teaching precision and who has only been playing bridge for a year. We had just agreed to play kickback and thinking he'd think 4N was natural, and 4 might look natural, I chose 5. I'm not sure what a standard agreement should be in this situation where the kickback suit and 4 notrump could both be taken as natural. We ended up in 6 hearts, but it makes 7 notrump and 7 hearts. Not unhappy, just trying to see what was a better path. Of course playing natural 2/1 or SAYC, this auction isn't near as fraught with time and space concerns.
April 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Double of 3 would be looking to play notrump denying a biddable major, looking for diamond control.
April 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nod, and so little time.
April 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
err yup…knew I was getting tired when I was trying to work it out! Thanks Kieran.
Feb. 16, 2017
1 2 3
.

Bottom Home Top