Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ronald Kalf
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 88 89 90 91
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Likely my s aren‘t worth a dime in a - or N-contract.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
See above.
Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
lead and /h switch. As soon as W gets in there are 9 tricks +1. Strange: I’m pretty sure that GIB said down only on lead of K.
Jan. 8
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, then it‘s -800 against 5, but still not good.
Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. I‘d love to play against such partnerships… at high stakes.
2. a) Yes, b) restricted choice, c) give W K and 5 makes.
Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know. That is why the first T stands for Total not Our!
Jan. 8
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Excellent Randy, i‘m almost sorry that I don‘t play KSU anymore. As I started playing bridge again, I tried in vain to find supporters for modernizing KSU without changing the basics in a dedicated forum (https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!forum/kaplan-sheinwold).
Of course suggestions from Frances and Kit are always worth looking at, but what they don‘t (probably cannnot) consider is that it disrupts the whole beautifull reversing structure of the KSU-1m-opening that old school KSers love so much.
OTOH the concept behind the reverses were to alien for my (former) partner, whis is why we shifted to QUC. I’m perfectly happy with „my“ Polish, but also glad if I can occasionally play good old KSU.
Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I used to double with „tricks“, usually a good suit to lead or to bid if opps run, but never combined this with FP. Pard would sit for the double with 8+ and stoppers in 3+ suits or any 10+. I guess you can play FP with this kind of X, but seems dangerous if X can also be 16 hcp balanced.
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Frances, Richard F exactly what are you doubling with? I am as astonished as Ron about X of 1N creating an FP-situation.
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, if the shoe fits, wear it, but “dimwitted pseudoadvises“ isn‘t referring to a person. Yesterday was perfect, thank you.
Jan. 7
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1-(1)-P=1, …-X=1 easy.
1-(1)-P=1, …-X=1 assuming you don‘t need a natural 1 and P then n or X shows a trap pass
Jan. 6
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I only read Bridgewinners, is National Geographics about bridge too? Not being US-based I don‘t warch CNN but for news I mostly rely on NDRInfo, a radio station, which probably puts me in an even lower catogary by your measures. No David, I don‘t mind the occasional mirthful, ironic or even sarcastic comment, but I‘m simply tired of these dimwitted pseudoadvices.
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would never ever bid this if not discussed. It seems illogical to ask for Q and then make a GST after denial. Maybe 5N would ask for extra length in , although we generally show Q with extra length. I tried hard to find a meaning, but every time I have one, it‘s nonsense at second thought.
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My reasoning is this:
1) X and 1 create biddings space for responder, 1 is neutral
2) a natural 1 doesn‘t take away bidding space, assuming you don‘t need a natural 1
3) natural bids give responder an additional bid, the cue
From those I derived that
a) X and 1 should be constructive
b) other 1-level bids shouldn‘s show a defined suit
c) 2-level and higher bids should be natural, preemptive one-suiters
d) 2N shows a distributional hand with good minors
e) 3N is to play based upon a long suit, let responder gueus what to lead.
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Now I know that our 1//N are called YAC. X is „me too“ and 1 is a 3-suiter with both majors. But I also like Tom‘s idea of X/1 to show /. Like Tomaz I need to know advancer’s bids before deciding to change.
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bid as high as you dare and when in doubt bid one level higher.
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How does this comment help the serious posters amongst us?
Jan. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Far from confident is the understatement of this still young year.
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
…but only if that would be my last chance.
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Opener should bid with a weakish distributional hand that wouldn‘t sit the X (pass then bid is strong). Having said that, 2N can only be 0544 (but we‘ve never discussed this). Doubler bids GB2N-style.
Jan. 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 88 89 90 91
.

Bottom Home Top