Page 0033

Views The Debate The (Other) LETTERS TO THE

I WAS disappointed and sur- ONE test of a good convention Debate EDITOR

prised by the review of Knave is whether you can find good

of Hearts in the December contracts without it. Both ON page 33 of your December

issue of English Bridge. Paul Andrew Kambites’ example issue Michael Byrne strongly

Send your letters to the Editor,

Bowyer seems to have entirely hands are trivial 3NT contracts defends making a take-out Elena Jeronimidis, 23 Erleigh Road,

missed what gives this book its by any sensible bidding. Paul double with a balanced hand of Reading RG1 5LR, or e-mail

originality – the discursive Bowyer makes two very good 14 points. On page 44 Julian (please include your postal

thoughts of a non-expert but points: that a pre-emptive jump Pottage states that doubling address)

competent club player as he raise needs some definition with an almost identical hand is The editor reserves the right to

condense letters. Publication does

defends, bids and declares and that you should ignore a ‘dangerous’. Do we: not mean the EBU agrees with the

hands both against opponents poor four-card major in a weak • Stick with our ‘favourite’ views expressed or that

the comments are factually correct.

and with partners of mixed hand in favour of a natural expert?

ability. raise. He gets my vote. • Ignore all experts?

Of course the bidding is vari- As an aside, can’t we have Perhaps we should be told.

able, as is the play. That is what our cake and eat it by using Paul Quinn, Toprow Coups

makes the author’s commen- 2NT to show a sound raise?

tary and afterthoughts so enter- Mike Pomfrey, by email Similar letters came from Peter I ENJOYED Simon Cochemé’s

taining and instructive. By Pierce (London) and Ian Dalziel article about the Vienna Coup,

definition most of us are ave - I AM total ly in favour of (Troon). In his October article (as Bath Coup etc. in your Decem-

rage players hoping to be- Inverted Minor Suit Raises well as in the December Letters page) ber issue. But if I was too cow-

come better. I learned far more having used them with most Michael Byrne advocated the double ardly to try such tactics, would

from these hands to improve partners over the past 30 or so if the opening bid was a minor, so I be guilty of a Chicken Coup?

my play on a winter’s evening years. My vote, therefore, goes partner did not have to bid at the Andrew Mitchell, Ripponden

at Kendal Bridge Club than I to Andrew Kambites, although two level. In Julian Pottage’s hand,

ever would from the experts’ one page is really not enough the opening bid was 1™, so unless

‘timeless works’ your reviewer to cover all aspects of its use. partner had spades, he had to bid at Amazing

so admires. However, I felt Paul Bowyer’s the two level. Also the Byrne hand

Christopher Wilkinson, arguments were quite helpful contained a four-card major; the FURTHER to the correspon-

Kendal to players unfamiliar with Pottage hand did not. I don’t believe dence on amazing hands, the

such methods as he indirectly the ‘disagreement’ is as extreme as Daily Mail reported on 25th

I WOULD like to make some points out the need for a Mr Quinn thinks. Having said that, November that four pension-

remarks about David Bird’s partnership to have definite of course there are differences in style ers in Warwickshire, playing

article ‘Beat Today’s Experts’ in understandings and require- among experts, and players can pick whist, were each dealt a com-

the December issue (pp. 40- ments when deciding to use the style they are most comfortable plete suit. The odds of that

41) in which he criticised the them. There is obviously a with, provided they blend it into happening are 1 in 2,235, 197,

‘very moderate bidding’ of variety of ways to progress their own system in a logical way. In 406,895,366,368,301,5590,999.

experts Bart Bramley (Hand 2) these sequences – such as the next issue, I hope to include an Tom Pigott, Wadhurst

and Hjordis (‘Disa’) Eythors- should a direct raise deny a article on the principles of doubling

dottir (Hand 4). major suit – and, perhaps, for take-out at the one level. — Ed.

David never gives the state could be a subject for a future Pet Method

of the match when criticising debate.

examples of apparently poor Michael Gwilliam, Fareham Chorus IN Paul Hackett’s Xmas Quiz,

bidding by top-class experts. the options in Question 3 are

On the assumption that both MY husband and I use inverted I HAVE been to the club on unsatisfactory. I would reply

Bramley and Eythors dottir minors, but they may just be which Simon Cochemé’s 2´ (= either 11 points or a

thought that their respective more useful if you play five- Bridge: the Musical (October transfer to a minor). Partner

teams were trailing at the time, card majors and a 12-14 1NT. 2011) is based. When the now bids 2NT with 12-13

their offbeat actions represent- The only disadvantage we have defender immediately over points, or 3® with 14.

ed the best chance of engi- found is that after 1® – 3® the declarer played an unneces- Peter Calviou, by email

neering a ‘swing’ in their opener (with a maximum of sarily high card, everyone got

team’s favour and thus reduc- points) may be tempted to go to up and burst into the chorus Paul Hackett replies: Your sugges-

ing the deficit. 3NT. of Second Hand Rose. tion of 2´ is the equivalent of the

The science of ‘state of the Monica Schubert, by email Henry Cosgrave, London classic raise to 2NT. While you

match’ (or ‘roughhouse’) tac- correctly discarded Stayman on the

tics is fascinating and know- hand, you maybe did not take the

ledge of it should be an THE DECEMBER DEBATE quality into account. Finding the

essential part of an ambitious Thank you for your votes and comments. The majority view was perfect hand opposite where 3NT

bridge player’s armoury. that Inverted Minor Suit Raises are NOT a good convention. makes is less than 2%. Pass is the

Michael Akeroyd, by email percentage winning bid. r February 2012 English Bridge 33


  1. Page 0001
  2. Page 0002
  3. Page 0003
  4. Page 0004
  5. Page 0005
  6. Page 0006
  7. Page 0007
  8. Page 0008
  9. Page 0009
  10. Page 0010
  11. Page 0011
  12. Page 0012
  13. Page 0013
  14. Page 0014
  15. Page 0015
  16. Page 0016
  17. Page 0017
  18. Page 0018
  19. Page 0019
  20. Page 0020
  21. Page 0021
  22. Page 0022
  23. Page 0023
  24. Page 0024
  25. Page 0025
  26. Page 0026
  27. Page 0027
  28. Page 0028
  29. Page 0029
  30. Page 0030
  31. Page 0031
  32. Page 0032
  33. Page 0033
  34. Page 0034
  35. Page 0035
  36. Page 0036
  37. Page 0037
  38. Page 0038
  39. Page 0039
  40. Page 0040
  41. Page 0041
  42. Page 0042
  43. Page 0043
  44. Page 0044
  45. Page 0045
  46. Page 0046
  47. Page 0047
  48. Page 0048
  49. Page 0049
  50. Page 0050
  51. Page 0051
  52. Page 0052
  53. Page 0053
  54. Page 0054
  55. Page 0055
  56. Page 0056