Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ig Nieuwenhuis
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Abstain

After reading about this for several years I still don't get it. (must be because I am from Europe, I think)

When I started learning this game we could (and did) try any crazy idea. There is some (WBF-compliant) regulation now on HUM and Brown-sticker, but otherwise it's still “anything goes”.
And the ‘lesser’ players (though I hate the term) cope with our idiocies by just bidding naturally. So this whole codified regulation of approved conventions is ….. ?????

My vote would be for not necessary.
Nov. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted, but wondered: what's the difference between this sequence and a direct 3 from partner?
Nov. 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
for me North has a 2NT super-accept of the -transfer. Depending on agreements we then exchange cues in some way and South takes over somewhere along the line. He'll find the essential 2 keycards plus the trump-queen and again depending on agreements about location of the extra kings.
7 should be reachable.
Nov. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At the table I'd try:
Take in hand
Cash 2 clubs and run the 's, I am assuming they split no worse than 4-2, coming down to:
5
KT
-
KT
opposite
KJ
A52
-
-

Now cash the K, throwing a .
If the J drops I'm home, if not 's could have been 3-3 or somebody had to abandon one on the 's.
Sept. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you need an agreement which bid is “neutral” after FSF. This handpattern is not uncommon, so the agreement should contain which ‘lie’ you can tell
Aug. 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
my own bidding sequence may induce a -lead (solving 1 suit).
1 - 1
2NT - 3 (checkback)
3 - some technical stuff to establish 's)
answer - RKC for 's
5 (3) - 5 (Q-ask)
6 (yes + K) - 6.

I would probably take the lead in hand and play Ace and a , because I can handle 4-1 in South but not in North.
If 4-1 's(and S took the K): play Q and draw trumps.
Cash the high 's and the And counting the hand decide to either finesse in 's or play for the drop.
If not 4-1: draw trump and ruff a club.

If no -lead: haven't gotten that far, but will probably play the 's the same. If 3-2 's ruff the club high and I might have a squeeze if South took the K and returned a to the Ace.
If 's are 4-1 with S, I'll have to rely on one of the red suit finesses and I'll take my chances with the 's as N has more room for 's.

Hope this helps
Aug. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5 :-)
thought about that before deciding to bid 4.
Aug. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Merijn,

I play 2NT as minors here and X as 's + minor.
I agree with Richard that 2NT as 's + minor is probably better, but we've been playing this for years now and other changes in the system take precedence for the memory-load.
Aug. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I ‘remember’ suit patterns and hand patterns, since they always add up to 13.
the one I have a hard time with is voids; for some reason 544 or something like that is what I tend to forget
Aug. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3NT as a (semi-)solid minor WITH a side stop.
Made possible because we play a version of transfer-pre-empts
Aug. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
would he not have balanced with 2NT then?
July 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
how about:
1 - X - 2 - 2
3 - 4 -
that should imply 4's, assuming of course (which I do) that 3 would be a one-round-force (otherwise he should have started with 2-overcall and then a later X)
July 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dorn,
just my opinion: the hand your partner expects starts with a double and follows up with 4.
The direct 4 is this kind of hand; the one that already needs some help to make it but is not interested in other denominations.
July 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
barring some unlikely distributions (and honour-placements) this should be a good contract as partner probably has at least 5 but probably 6 clubs. If the opps are bidding on no points in spades, the Ace will provide a discard for a losing and partner needs to find a red king somewhere useful.
Thought about 6NT, but this seems safer
June 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I regularly describe my fascination with bridge as: a new puzzle to solve every 7.5 minutes.
That may be seen as including the logic/math part, but when asked to elaborate I also mention the social aspect and the opps trying to make the puzzles as difficult as possible… since that is a large part of the fun :-)
June 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In our agreements the 1-bid (normally 6-9 without a 4-card-major) may contain a GF-hand that can still bid a 4-card-major later.
similarly the 1NT-bid (which promises 's) may contain an invitational hand with a 4-card-major.
Note: we play 12-14-NT. this has a lot of consequences for the bidding after each transfer-bid from 1 to 1NT.
June 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
we pre-alert about 6 things about our agreements, which are not quite mainstream (not even in NL: see below). I think the most important base of our agreements is that we bid a lot on distribution (which is also reflected in the distribution of handtypes over our various opening-bids)

However, system-freedom in the Netherlands is a lot wider than in the US. This freedom is used extensively; you meet all kinds of agreements. The fact that our sandwich-bids can be (don't have to be) extremely weak is the only unusual part of this agreement.

We also have other agreements that allow us to enter the auction, aimed at low-level take-outs that may be good sacrifices. For example: opposite a passed partner a weak jump is very wide-range (we explain it as: opposite a passed hand he doesn't see game)

As I stated above: so far I think we've won more imps on this type of bidding than we lost.
June 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
X shows both remaining colors with emphasis on the highest; 1NT with emphasis on the lowest.
Emphasis: most often longer but with equal length it's stronger.

Strength is defined as: from 0 points upward (and that has happened a few times).
the only position we're a bit (un?)reasonably careful is red against white.

So far we've not lost many imps on this, but we do sometimes lose some points for going for -500 against 420 or 450
June 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe that a well designed mix of strong and weak hands in 2-level-plus opening bids will outscore such a system in the long run (but I will readily admit I'm biased as that is the way we designed our system).
interesting question though
May 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
how about South bidding 2 before supporting 's?
That would make the auction gameforcing at least. In my own agreements the correction of 2NT (over 2) to 3 offers a slam-positive hand and invites cues. so the follow-up I'm proposing is:
1 - (1) - 1 - pass
2 - 2NT
3 - 4
4 (also promises a -cue) - ???
either RKC or 5 will then get you to slam
Feb. 11, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
.

Bottom Home Top