Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Helene Thygesen
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wow, we are w/w at matchpoints and we have a good five card suit and 14 HCPs. How on Earth can pass even be an LA?
June 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I just realize that “t/o” maybe isn't clear. I meant it as “short spades”. Does anyone play it as short hearts?
May 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some fifteen years ago there were a few Dutch and Belgian pairs that played Lorenzo when nonvulnerable and some more normal system when vulnerable.

Lorenzo means that all 2-openings are 0-7 HCPs and can be a 4-card suit. Hence, pass in 1st/2nd seat shows 8-11 points.

The advantage of that system is that it is one of the more crazy definitions of pass which are not HUM.

Other than that I don't think it has many advantages, haven't heard about anyone playing it for about a decade so it probably went out of fashion.
April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, opps once had an accident when I opened 1NT, partner's rho doubled to show a t/o of diamonds but his partner thought it showed a generic strong hand, so I played 2NTx+3.
March 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
People rarely bid game against strong notrump so there isn't much need to preempt. If playing against pairs which are good at finding games against strong nt, I might try stayman and then hopefully it will be possible to correct 2 to 3 if it gets doubled.

Btw, I am not convinced that a transfer is more effective at keeping them out of game than pass. My LHO likely has a good hand and if they play artificial doubles he might have to pass with a strong balanced hand, while he would probably double the 2NT bid and/or double 3.
March 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This reminds me of one of the beginners at my local club who raised her partner's 1NT to 3NT on a yarb. When her p asked why she did it, she said she had been taught that 1NT is the most difficult contract to play so she didn't want to leave partner in 1NT with such a weak hand :)
March 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you construct the optimal “hcp” scale by fitting the regression model 3nt_makes ~ #aces + #kings + #queens #jacks to DD data sets, you find that a queen is only 1.7 points or such, less than two jacks. This is probably because for a DD declarer, it's not so essential to have the queen since you can often finesse against it otherwise.
March 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you want to explore a very specific hand type that comes up once in a thousand boards or less, and maybe analyse the effect of bidding and lead methods which are rarely used in practice, while at the same time have sample size in the thousands, there's really no alternative to simulations.

Of course this doesn't mean you should have blind faith in DD sims:
- You can do sometimes do the same analysis of a smaller and/or broader set of real world hands
- You can maybe calibrate the DD results to adjust for declarer's advantage (partscores) or handicap (slams). Maybe you can do something more sophisticated here than simply reducing it to partscore/game/slam
- You can simulate SD using Jack, or use DD-play-with-SD-leads
- You can be aware of the specific biases which DD analysis is likely to produce, rather than the not very helpful reservation that “DD isn't the same as real expert bridge(duh!)”
March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, I should have been more specific about Toine's claim: He is not disputing that the hand layout and the leave-in of the double was authentic. What he says is that the most plausible explanation is that the vugraph operator missed the first round of the auction so instead of
3-x-a.p.
it went
p-1-p-2H
3-x-a.p.

But I will stop now, Toine can speak for himself if he wants.
March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I think 2 as non-forcing with four spades has little merits. If responder has an unbalanced hand he might want to be in game opposite a minimum with four spades, and to sign off in 3m rather than 2 if opener has three spades.
March 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, 2NT shows four spades
March 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Standard in North America appears to be NF with four spades, at least that's the traditional meaning. In the Netherlands, it uses to be standard to play it as ostensibly an invite without for spades, but could also contain some other hand types. I am not sure how common that treatment is at the moment.

In my regular partnership I play it as weak with four spades and longer diamonds.
March 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's an apparently well-researched article by Toine van Hoof in the most recent issue of the Dutch magazine “IMP”. His conclusion is that the accusations have little substance. A big part of the article is devoted to the famous conversion of a take-out double of 3 with four small diamonds and seven hearts. After very elaborate research, drawing from every conceivable source that could possible have first-hand knowledge of the infamous hand, he ends with the conclusion that most likely the hand was simply incorrectly recorded.
March 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, that certainly makes the system easy to remember.

How do you bid the hand in the OP, though, assuming that the heart suit is too good for 1NT? It would seem logical that 2 shows this hand. Then you need a way to show the weak hand without spades. I would think that 1, then 2, should show the weak hand with hearts only. Then 1 followed by 2, shows an invitational hand with hearts only. I don't think you need to distinguish between 5 and 6 hearts at this stage.
March 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Showing this hand via 2 rather than 2 will make opener declare. Not that this matters a lot but maybe it makes things easier to remember if the general principle is that responder tries to avoid bidding suits that are likely to become trump.
March 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes but you could miss a spade fit
March 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that stopping in 2 of a minor is an illusion. But 3 as weak is not always safe. Partner could have 3334 and IMO also 3325 (although the latter might not apply if you play 5533). Even if partner is 2344 I am not sure if I want to play 3.
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The number of “something else” votes is interesting. I thought I had provided a fair number of alternatives but apparently not enough :)

A few (Damian, Rosalind, Hamish) have described artificial meanings of 2. John plays it as wide-ranging and possibly balanced, an option I didn't include.

What Frances and Mike describe seems to me to be covered by the poll options but maybe I misunderstood and/or didn't describe the options clearly enough.
March 12
Helene Thygesen edited this comment March 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This obviously takes a lot of pressure off other rebids, but I am concerned about the playability. With a 3343 6-count I would really like to be allowed to pass the 2 rebid. But I suppose 3 is LoTT-compliant as opps will have a major suit fit.
March 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kieran, which hands will rebid 2, then? If you rebid 1NT with balanced hands, hands without diamonds would have a singleton diamonds. Is responder meant to cater to this?
March 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.

Bottom Home Top