Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rosalind Hengeveld
1 2 3 4 ... 25 26 27 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not familiar with ‘BWS’ (and don’t feel like googling it), but I presume 2 is something weak with hearts.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good criterion: if 2 is natural, we treat 1 as totally artificial and our club bids are natural.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play that 3 is preemptive, 3 (opponents' suit) is a mixed raise (‘constructive’, typically nine losers), and 2NT is a limit raise or better. Only this last bid can be based on three-card support.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Now there is a solution to ‘The Bridge World death hand’: 2NT shows six+ diamonds and three spades, invitational or better. This is playable if you open any strong (like 18–19) balanced hand 1. For this problem no methods were given, so I bid 2NT.
Feb. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my book, 3 is forcing to game. And four of a minor does not count as a ‘game’. I have all too often been in four of a minor, making six or seven. And that is worse than ending up in five, down one.
Feb. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I double, which is basically negative, though easily passable. If partner responds 4NT, meant as take-out, I’ll shock her by passing. If partner bids 5/, she is supposed to have length and to make it.
Feb. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not sure I understand – which should not be too surprising without a definition. Do you mean: Qxx in partner’s suit is a ‘quality honor’ while Qxx in an unbid side suit is not? Is a singleton queen in partner’s suit a quality honor? How about Kx(+) in an unbid suit? Is an ace always ‘quality’?

The term could be okay, depending on the intended meaning, but for some shades of meaning, ‘working honor’ might be clearer. I do agree, by the way, that using a ‘catchy’ term is important.
Feb. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
#4: Inexperienced players confronted with a claim have a way to insist or request that play continue. Under the current laws, the claiming party could only reply like ‘you either concede or we call the director’, which inexperienced players tend to perceive as a dilemma. This happens a lot.

I agree that for experienced players, requesting that play continue after a contested claim is not an attractive option.
Jan. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Suit preference, except when signaler (third hand) has shown a five-card or longer suit: then ‘combi’ signal, with the lowest card asking for continuation, middle and high being suit preference.

(But why is this not a poll?)
Jan. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The likelihood of an odd versus an even number of keycards depends greatly on the preceding bidding. Also, the proposed method – indicating parity of number of keycards – appears to imply that partner can distinguish between, say, two and four keycards. Experience has shown that this is not always the case.
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That ‘you cannot prove it, only disprove it if wrong’ goes for all human knowledge based on inductive reasoning. And that is most human knowledge. The sole exception is knowledge proved formally, such as Pythagoras' theorem.
Jan. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One could say the same about an undiscussed double that's something other than negative. Way back in the olden days, we had a limited number of negative doubles; any undiscussed double was penalty by default. Nowadays, it is rather the opposite: we have a limited number of penalty doubles and undiscussed doubles are negative unless that is absurd.
Jan. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Game try in hearts, while a direct 3 would be non-invitational.
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
By the same token, someone – maybe not even a bad player – may revoke, pull the wrong card, misunderstand an explanation, or just suffer from a black-out. In the scoreboard you will see very few players going down (scoring, say, 5%) and a lot of players making (scoring, say, 55%).
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes; believe it or not: sometimes 3 already makes things difficult for opponents.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
… but don't tell anybody!
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1NT as an artificial sign-off is because we play Raptor. However, even without Raptor (as I play with another partner), it makes sense to play two of the highest biddable suit as ‘something’, especially in hearts as partner is more likely to raise hearts than any other suit. With a bust we may bid a three-card suit other than the highest. With the given hand, if playing Raptor and artificial 1NT response to double, I would either bid 2, showing about 7–10 and hence less likely to get passed, or ‘smuggle’ one point and bid 1NT (officially 0–6) anyway.

Sjoert Brink & Bas Drijver, the strongest Dutch pair and one of the strongest in the world, play this the other way around: 1NT is their artificial positive (8+ if I remember well). It does not seem to make much difference. With the given hand they, too, would probably either bid 2 or ‘smuggle’ one point – the other way.

The Raptor convention shows a remarkable knee-jerk reaction: players who have never played Raptor invariably state that they ‘would never give up their natural 1NT overcall’ (I must admit that this was my initial feeling, too). Players who have tried Raptor usually do not want to give it up any more. But all that has little baring on this bidding problem.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It makes sense to play 2 as promising ‘something’, either a little honor strength or extra heart length. With a bust and four hearts, have some other bid (in my system: 1NT).
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If dumping can be ‘strategically correct’, there must be something wrong with how the event is set up.
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
By what rule under which jurisdiction? This ‘double-blitz rule’ may be theoretically somewhat fair, but looks draconic to me, as both pairs on opposing teams in the same direction occurs somewhat regularly and usually without any malicious intent.
Jan. 18
1 2 3 4 ... 25 26 27 28
.

Bottom Home Top