Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
51
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: 001 OVER INTERFERE
« Last post by brian_m on April 29, 2019, 12:04:18 AM »
Quote from: Jimmy on April 28, 2019, 10:57:20 PM
Sh-t,  told you my grammar and expression was lacking.   8)

I know the  condition of game force was established.  And in fairness, have you's ever stopped short of 3NT and/or 5m?

Playing my old Precision system, yes, but we had one sequence where opener specifically showed a misfitting but otherwise flat 16 count, and responder was allowed to pass with exactly 8 HCP.

Playing OCP, or any other version of Precision without that escape sequence? No, never. You accept the occasional hand with 16 opposite 8 where no game can be made as the cost of making life a lot simpler on the vast majority of the other hands.
52
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: 001 OVER INTERFERE
« Last post by Jimmy on April 28, 2019, 10:57:20 PM »
Sh-t,  told you my grammar and expression was lacking.   8)

I know the  condition of game force was established.  And in fairness, have you's ever stopped short of 3NT and/or 5m?
53
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: [Bidding problem] OCP simple system
« Last post by Jimmy on April 28, 2019, 10:50:11 PM »
I will be technical.   

IMO,  bridge rules would not have the 1 !D - P - 1 !H as alert or announcement during the bidding, since it is natural and contains at least 4 of the suit.  As for an announcements, they should be short and with few words.   Examples:  transfer, could be short, etc.   

Now,  the statement should be on your convention card and you should draw the opponents’ attention to your convention card before the round begins.

54
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: 001 OVER INTERFERE
« Last post by brian_m on April 28, 2019, 10:43:42 PM »
Quote from: OliverC on April 28, 2019, 09:18:50 PM
LOLOL ...I was just going to say, you cannot have a "tentative" game force. A bid is either game-forcing or it isn't. A positive response to 1 !C, playing OCP or Precision, is 1,000,000% game-forcing!!!! A bid cannot be 50.0001% GF :).

To be fair to Jim (hey, someone has to be!  ;) ) I've seen the term 'conditional game force' used before in books to describe a sequence that is GF or not based on some aspect of the other hand. An OCP example would be

1NT-2 !D-2 !H-2 !S

Personally I would describe 2 !S as "GF unless opener is an absolute minimum" or "GF unless opener rebids 2NT" but I would have no problems in seeing it described as a "conditional game force".

Tentative game forces, however, I've not met up with before.  ::)


55
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: 001 OVER INTERFERE
« Last post by Jimmy on April 28, 2019, 10:19:04 PM »
Positive Response               !S xx      !H KQJxx  !D xx       !C KJxx

                         Hand 1     !S AKxx  !H xx       !D KQxx   !C Axx 

                         Hand 2     !S AKxx  !H xx       !D AQJx   !C Q10x

                         Hand 3     !S Kxxx   !H xx       !D AQJx   !C AQx 

                         Hand 4     !S Axxx   !H xx       !D AKQx    !C Axx

                         Hand 5     !S AKx    !H xx        !D AKJx   !C Q987 

                         Hand 6     !S xxx    !H Ax        !D AKQx   !C Axxx 



 
56
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: [Bidding problem] OCP simple system
« Last post by OliverC on April 28, 2019, 09:23:43 PM »
" As far as I'm concerned (and I first wore a TD's hat in 1976) the rules on disclosure ARE strict. "

Amen to that! <here insert a choir of heavenly angels singing something suitably angelic :)>
57
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: 001 OVER INTERFERE
« Last post by OliverC on April 28, 2019, 09:18:50 PM »
LOLOL ...I was just going to say, you cannot have a "tentative" game force. A bid is either game-forcing or it isn't. A positive response to 1 !C, playing OCP or Precision, is 1,000,000% game-forcing!!!! A bid cannot be 50.0001% GF :).
58
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: 001 OVER INTERFERE
« Last post by brian_m on April 28, 2019, 07:43:53 PM »


I still don't like it. The bidding has gone as you suggest, with opener making your two-way double, and my 1 !H positive was on   !S xx  !H KQJxx  !D xx   !C KJxx. Please tell me whether I bid 3 !C over the double or pass it out, and why.

[/quote]


IMO,  you would definitely bid 3 !C removing the double.  There is already a tentative game force (not absolute).  The hand is almost minimum and not a good defensive hand.  You do not have 6  !H's.  In addition,  partner has shown balanced distribution with 16-19/20 HCP's. It's beginning to look like 3NT is the best contract.
[/quote]


I have to disagree again. After 1 !C-1 !H there is an absolute game force, unless the opponents offer us a more lucrative alternative. I'm just trying to understand how your responder is supposed to tell the difference between an opener who has doubled to show the flat balanced hand and the opener who has the full-blooded penalty double. Let me turn the question around. On what sort of 1 !H positive do you expect responder to assume that opener's double is for penalties, rather than being a balanced 16-19/20?

59
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: [Bidding problem] OCP simple system
« Last post by brian_m on April 28, 2019, 07:33:50 PM »
Quote from: Jimmy on April 28, 2019, 01:59:11 PM
Quote from: brian_m on April 28, 2019, 05:44:32 AM



Well, Jim, your opinion and my experience differ is all I can say. Especially if we are at adverse vulnerability and playing opponents who understand Precision, I will shade a 1 !H bid rather than risk a silly  !D contract.

Give me  !S Qxxx  !H Qxxx   !D x   !C Qxxx and I am going to bid 1 !H over 1 !D, and then pass opener's rebid, all day every day. Yes, sometimes I will end up in 2 !D rather than 1 !D, but when I do, opener will have a genuine  !D suit, and I will NOT be playing in 1 !D on a combined 3-card trump suit!

This may be (mildly) anti-system as far as OCP is concerned. I don't care. What I do care about is not going down -300 or more against a part score when opponents with a genuine  !D suit know enough to pass us out in 1 !D. And yes, for avoidance of doubt, I do alert 1 !H as "may be shaded if I hate  !D").


Brian,  IMO we are debating the same point from different perspectives.   I would also bid 1 !H on !S Qxxx  !H Qxxx   !D x   !C Qxxx

Although,  I am not sure about the alert "may be shaded".  Hope you are kidding on that statement.   :o

Bridge would be so boring if the rules were strict.   ;)


No, I'm absolutely serious. It depends on the opponents. If I think they are going to take the announced 8+ HCP as applying with arithmetic precision, then yes, I will alert 1 !H over 1 !D as "8+ HCP, 4+ !H, may be shaded if I hate  !D".  I always lean in the direction of more information rather than less when trying to give full disclosure. They should know what my partner knows, end of story. As far as I'm concerned (and I first wore a TD's hat in 1976) the rules on disclosure ARE strict.


60
Correct (?) Answers to Bidding Problems / Re: 001 OVER INTERFERE
« Last post by Jimmy on April 28, 2019, 02:30:07 PM »
 
[/quote]

I still don't like it. The bidding has gone as you suggest, with opener making your two-way double, and my 1 !H positive was on   !S xx  !H KQJxx  !D xx   !C KJxx. Please tell me whether I bid 3 !C over the double or pass it out, and why.

[/quote]


IMO,  you would definitely bid 3 !C removing the double.  There is already a tentative game force (not absolute).  The hand is almost minimum and not a good defensive hand.  You do not have 6  !H's.  In addition,  partner has shown balanced distribution with 16-19/20 HCP's. It's beginning to look like 3NT is the best contract. 
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10