New answers tagged

0

In fourth seat, after three passes, you should be "bidding to make." That's because you have the option of getting a zero score just by passing. You don't have to worry about "sacrificing" when your opponents haven't bid. The hand, ♠xx ♥KQJxxxx ♦Jxx ♣x, doesn't qualify. It is only good for five tricks, and even assuming that partner (with 11 points) is good ...


2

In addition to the excellent answers already, I would note that there is a difference in seat for most expert players, also. First seat preempts both opponent, so will be a bit wider. Say 4-10. Second seat preempts only one opponent (and one partner), so a bit narrower. Say 6-10. Third seat is more complex as they often can open at the 1 level many 8-10 ...


5

The choice a partnership makes in this regard will influence their relative strength at Matchpoints vs IMPS. Opening wide-range pre-empts facilitate more frequent interference with the opponent's auctions, but make finding game or slam yourself more difficult. This is a clear Matchpoint strategy (as emphasizing the frequency of a winning result on the hand). ...


4

Wide ranging weak 2s are so common that there is a well-known convention called Ogust for dealing with them. After a bid of 2N by responder, opener's bids at the 3 level give no information other than whether his or her hand is stronger or weaker (usually 7 vs 8 losers) and whether his or her pre-empting suit is better or worse (usually how many of the top ...


2

For opening suit bids no, emphatically not. The reason is simple mathematics in that when you open (in 1st or 2nd seat) you have no idea whether your side is looking at part score, game, or slam; and the appropriate aggressiveness towards each of these levels varies differently with vulnerability. The relative worth of game to part-score goes up with ...


7

Rule of 13 trumps Rule of 15. If you have 13 points you open. If you read the first few sentences of the article you linked, it says clearly you only apply that when you have 9-12 points.


1

Larry Cohen here explicitly provides, as an example of failing the Rule of Fifteen, this eleven point hand: S: 3 H: K J 5 4 D: K J 8 7 C: K 9 8 7 However, he proposes the CRIFS variant - Cohen's Rule in Fourth Seat - Whenever the Pearson Points count (HCP + # of Spades) is between 14 and 16, instead assess your opponents. If they are amongst the better ...



Top 50 recent answers are included