rogerclee Posted May 26, 2011 Report Share Posted May 26, 2011 I saw a hand where Balicki (playing with Zmudzinski) did not open something like KQ98xx Jxxx Ax x in second seat playing Polish Club. It doesn't prove anything, but I think whether or not you open these shapely 10 counts matters less than most people think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2200 Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 Boy, being a non-expert I learned on my very first day that void counts as 3 points. So this is an automatic full opener. What's the problem? I always hate to pass and hear LHO opened 3 or 4C back to me. It makes me uncomfortable. If you are too cowardly to bid at one level, now you are thinking about getting involoved at 3 or 4 level? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2200 Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 Being a fan of Fred it's a joy to hear Fred also chooses to open 1H. However, I'm one of the 2D rebid voters......:( I saw Garozzo, once in a bidding match, rebidding 2 minor with similar hand(stronger in point count, but also with weak 6 card major), after pd "converting to 2H" with dblton, now the suit gets promoted, and Garozzo duly invited and was accepted to get a full 10. The other expert simply rebid 2H, all pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
655321 Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 Fred is a world champion so he doesn't need to bid a 3 card suit to prove he is an expert. I saw Garozzo, once in a bidding match, rebidding 2 minor with similar hand(stronger in point count, but also with weak 6 card major), after pd "converting to 2H" with dblton, now the suit gets promoted, and Garozzo duly invited and was accepted to get a full 10. But with this hand you would pass partner's preference to 2♥, so the cases are not the same. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 Fred is a world champion so he doesn't need to bid a 3 card suit to prove he is an expert. Fred is a world champion and he also stands by his statements with his name, with confidence ;) I really would bid 2♦ over 1 NT, and if Fred says it is a strange bid, i confess here that i must be wrong . But i wasnt trying to prove that i am an expert , when i thought 2♦ was the correct aproach after 1 NT, as i dont even use "expert" in my BBO card :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickRW Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 Boy, being a non-expert I learned on my very first day that void counts as 3 points. Yes. And further echoing that sentiment, one of the next things I learnt was that any six card suit, no matter how poor, is not only biddable, but re-biddable. I neither understand pass, nor this weird desire to rebid in diamonds which wouldn't even cross my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2200 Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 Yes. And further echoing that sentiment, one of the next things I learnt was that any six card suit, no matter how poor, is not only biddable, but re-biddable. I neither understand pass, nor this weird desire to rebid in diamonds which wouldn't even cross my mind.The reason to rebid 2D is if pd is short in hearts, you won't be comfortable. If pd has dblton he would convert back to 2H. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 The reason to rebid 2D is if pd is short in hearts, you won't be comfortable. If pd has dblton he would convert back to 2H.Would you rather play in a 6-1 fit or a 3-3? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 Would you rather play in a 6-1 fit or a 3-3? What about a 6-2 fit rather than a 4-3 fit :) Agree with opening here - rule of 20 and prime controls, partner won't be disappointed. I can understand passing [hv=pc=n&w=skqj2h765432dkj2c]133|100[/hv] (in fact I would) but not the actual hand. And 2♦ is very anti-percentage. If partner passes, that's bad. If he raises, that's trouble too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 I think that opening 1H is quite normal nowadays. I would open 1H and I consider myself sounder than most about such things. What surprises me is the number of people who say they would rebid 2D over 1NT. To me that is one strange bid - rebidding 2H is even more normal than opening 1H in my view. Fred GitelmanBridge Base Inc.www.bridgebase.com Yeah, but part of that for me is somewhat partnership understanding. As you may suspect, I have a lot of strange partnership understandings. :rolleyes: The idea? You start with the concept of what to do generally after forcing 1NT. Generally, I like a 2♦ rebid to promise four. Thus, for example, with 3532, we would rebid 2♣ (normally). You then get to the strange circumstance of 4531. In that situation, 2♣ seems like too much. I've done it, but it smells ugly. So, yet get an exception that 2♦ could be three diamonds with a stiff or void in clubs, which means four spades. You then assume that 2♦ either shows a heart-diamond two-suiter OR a heart-spade two-suiter (with a diamond fragment). Once you assume that, then a 2♦ rebid is a two-way bid. 4630 is closer to a 4531 contextually than it might be otherwise. You are putting more description on the table, in a sense, than a traditional 2♦ rebid would show. The "would you rather" discussion is quite misloeading. "Would you rather play in a 4-3 fit or a 6-2 fit?" Who passes Two Diamonds with 4D/2H?!?!? "Would you rather play in a 3-3 fit or a 6-1 fit?" If partner has 3-1-3-6, my concern is actually playing in a 6-0 fit, somewhat. Besides, if you play that 1H-1NT-2D-2S (that precise sequence) shows spade tolerance with long clubs, the question becomes, "Would you rather play in a 3-3 fit, a 6-1 fit, or a 4-3 fit?" I like the 4-3 fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 Maybe I'm under-analysing this hand, but I would open 1H and consider it not only normal, but not completely minimum.If partner responded 1NT, I would rebid 2H and think anything else is totally warped. The time to bid 2D with 6-3 is when I have a good hand with broken hearts and don't want to jump to 3H, not when I have a minimum opening bid. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 Maybe I'm under-analysing this hand, but I would open 1H and consider it not only normal, but not completely minimum.If partner responded 1NT, I would rebid 2H and think anything else is totally warped. The time to bid 2D with 6-3 is when I have a good hand with broken hearts and don't want to jump to 3H, not when I have a minimum opening bid.Indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 I don't understand these comments. Why is "the time" to open 1♥ and rebid 2♦ when you have a big hand? Sure, this allows to to bid again when partner, as expected, makes a courtesy correction. But, if he makes a courtesy corrections opposite this garbage hand, Opener has a solution to avoid having partner think that he has a big hand -- pass. If the concern is over a pass, I think Responder only passes with a stiff and at least four diamonds, personally, and that sounds like a good spot also. If the concern is over a 2NT call, how does bidding 2♥ stop further agression from partner better than 2♦? If the concern is over a super-accept of diamonds, if partner has that hand, most of the time 3♦ sounds OK too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 If the concern is over a pass, I think Responder only passes with a stiff and at least four diamonds, In that case, on the occasions when you're 5-5 in the reds, you get to play your 5-1 heart "fit" rather than your 5-3 diamonds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted May 28, 2011 Report Share Posted May 28, 2011 In that case, on the occasions when you're 5-5 in the reds, you get to play your 5-1 heart "fit" rather than your 5-3 diamonds. In what world? First of all, I also like 1♥-P-1NT!-P-3♦ to handle high-end 5-5's (playing rstrength of five losers). Second, you are not converting 2♦ to 2♥ with 1♥/3♦ in any world I know. Granted, you might end up at the three-level in the 5-3 (rather than the two-level) in diamonds (but never in hearts) if Responder rebids 2♠ to show the spade-tolerance-long-clubs hand, but then you also might end up in a 4-3 spade contract a lot or in a good club contract a lot as well. That sounds really good. Plus, force of reality kicks in somewhere here. If Opener has hearts and diamonds, especially 5-5, and if Responder has the 3-1-3-6 hand, entering the three-level to resolve clubs-or-diamonds is usually perfectly fine, because the opponents have already bid or are about to bid spades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted May 28, 2011 Report Share Posted May 28, 2011 They should lock the doors between these worlds, that's what I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted June 1, 2011 Report Share Posted June 1, 2011 If the concern is over a pass, I think Responder only passes with a stiff and at least four diamonds, personally, and that sounds like a good spot also. ...Second, you are not converting 2♦ to 2♥ with 1♥/3♦ in any world I know. I agree with han 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted June 1, 2011 Report Share Posted June 1, 2011 Whose sig is "gibberish in, gibberish out"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted June 1, 2011 Report Share Posted June 1, 2011 I agree with han Let me see if I understand this. If you have 3♦/1♥ and fewer than four spades, the least wild distribution will be 3-1-3-6 pattern. With that pattern, you would surely not convert to 2♥, right? That would be silliness. Juxtaposing my two comments suggests a logical flaw. I indicated that I would pass with 1♥/4♦, which seems right also. But, the question then is what to bid with 1♥/3♦ is you don't pass and you don't correct to 2♥. The juxtaposition suggests that these are the only two options, in which case I boxed myself in. However, as I indicated earlier, the least distributional hand for this sequence is 3-1-3-6. Take away a spade, and you have seven clubs. Bidding clubs seems like the solution to that problem. Even with six clubs, bidding clubs looks appealing, as a general rule. However, this is why I introduced the concept of rebidding 2♠ with these hands. Spade tolerance (meaning 3-4 spades -- and yes 4 is possible) with long (6-card) clubs and heart intolerance (usually will also have 2-3 diamonds as well). hence, the solution is easily 2♠ or 3♣, depending upon the 1♥/3♦ specifics in the black suits. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elianna Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 Posted Today, 14:49If the concern is over a pass, I think Responder only passes with a stiff and at least four diamonds, personally, and that sounds like a good spot also....Second, you are not converting 2♦ to 2♥ with 1♥/3♦ in any world I know. I agree with han Unfortunately, I can't vote this up more than once. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 However, as I indicated earlier, the least distributional hand for this sequence is 3-1-3-6. Take away a spade, and you have seven clubs. Bidding clubs seems like the solution to that problem. Even with six clubs, bidding clubs looks appealing, as a general rule. However, this is why I introduced the concept of rebidding 2♠ with these hands. Spade tolerance (meaning 3-4 spades -- and yes 4 is possible) with long (6-card) clubs and heart intolerance (usually will also have 2-3 diamonds as well). hence, the solution is easily 2♠ or 3♣, depending upon the 1♥/3♦ specifics in the black suits.So now, when you have 3631 opposite 3136 you get to choose between playing 3♣, 3♥ or 2♠, rather than 2♥. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 They should lock the doors between these worlds, that's what I think. Yes, we cannot let the demons emerge from the lower plane. The portal must stay shut! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveharty Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 Yes, we cannot let the demons emerge from the lower plane. The portal must stay shut!http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uLHm9LGjbT4/Tb8uYx04VVI/AAAAAAAADTE/v-4jbVHUCCo/s1600/gandalf-you-shall-not-pass.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOGIC Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 I agree with han Unfortunately, I can't vote this up anymore than once. :( I personally would have downvoted. Finding someone contradicting themselves with their own posts is awesome and I'm all for it, however it was pretty obvious that ken was saying partner will bid 3C with 13 in the reds, and only pass with 1-4+. I think that is ridiculous but it did not contradict itself. Frances was the one who looked silly in that post, not ken. Ken I am always passing without 6 good clubs, ie xxx x KQx J9xxxx or so, I am just passing. I think it is by far a percentage action, even if it risks a 3-3 fit sometimes. Usually we'll have a 4-3 fit and be playing at the 2 level with a ruffing value which is fine, and sometimes we'll find a 5-3 fit and be great. I think sometimes people who post on forums and read bridge problems a lot have a distorted view of how often a certain unlikely but common in problems type of situation happens. Also, Ken when responding to Gordon was always right that gordon was being a little bit ridiculous, for instance he implied partner might pass 2D with 2-3 in the reds which is indeed a "wtf" moment, and gordon also implied that ken's partner would false preference with 1 heart and 3 diamonds which ken said would not happen, which is true. Gordon was being weirder than Ken. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted June 2, 2011 Report Share Posted June 2, 2011 JLOGIC I think kenrexford was saying that he'd bid 2♠ on a 3136, I think 3136 and no other shape, but I'm not sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.