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.
In my book, ‘natural’ is the opposite of ‘artificial’. The latter is defined in the (2017) Laws as ‘A bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than (or in addition to) a willingness to play in the denomination named or last named’. Therefore, a 1NT call is natural if it shows nothing more or other than a willingness to play a notrump contract. This has nothing to do with distribution.
March 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I play over a strong notrump, 1NT-2-2-3 is ‘Weissberger’: 5-5 majors, invitational or better.

1NT-2-2/-3 is a fit in the major and forcing to game at least.

A diamond suit, with or without second suit, is shown via an immediate transfer.
March 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As Michael above said, nowadays 2NT is usually played as something with a spade fit.
March 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For what I know, a player may be obliged to either alert or announce, but never both.
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To me the hand looks like a mixed raise and in my methods 2 shows just that (with 2NT the limit raise). With no mixed raise available, I’ll sell the hand as a light limit.
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
‘Ne bis in idem’ does not apply when there is a ‘novum’.
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Double of 2 will probably be seen as showing a penalty pass of 1 doubled.
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner bid 1 instead of doubling. That suggests she may well have a void in hearts or otherwise a freak hand without much in clubs.
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play (and voted for) 4 as Leaping Michaels: diamonds and either major. 3 is both majors. 2NT is obviously useful in a natural sense.
March 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not really: I still have UI in the play.
Feb. 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
1 2 3 4 ... 25 26 27 28
.

Bottom Home Top