Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rosalind Hengeveld
1 2 3 4 ... 24 25 26 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Only 4-0 is now excluded and the ratios of the other distributions remain the same original 41% and 50%, which now translates to 45% and 55%.

However, when we lead for the second round of the suit and second hand follows suit, this changes to the familiar odds of just over 50% in favor of playing for the drop.

That ‘2 cards divide 52% 1-1’ is before any cards are played only.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks everybody for all your valuable contributions. I regret that this poll turned out more controversial than it was meant to be. Despite a clear majority of more than two thirds for one of the options, we obviously did not reach consensus. Therefore, conclusions I draw are strictly my own and pertain to my own writing only.

Apart from the poll results, arguments I have seen that impress me are the following:

* Names of conventions and treatments are themselves proper names, irrespective of their etymology (eponym or not, exact or jumbled), and therefore it makes sense to capitalize them.

* This does, however, vary by language. Capitalization does not seem to make sense in Chinese written in its traditional characters. In German, on the other hand, any and all nouns are capitalized, so there the point is moot.

* Capitalization of convention and treatment names makes them recognizable as such and thus enhance clarity. Words like ‘exclusion’, ‘inverted’, ‘raptor’, ‘scrambling’, ‘serious’ are English words by themselves. Capitalization makes it clear that a certain convention or treatment of that name is meant: a ‘serious notrump’ may be just a contract expected to make, while a ‘Serious Notrump’ is a certain slam convention.

In my own writing (in Dutch or English) I will from now on Capitalize any and all names of conventions and treatments.
Jan. 14
Rosalind Hengeveld edited this comment Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And English, too, is a Germanic language.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Inverted – or at least not 2 as just plain weak – is so common among better players that I would assume we play it unless explicitly agreed (and remembered) otherwise.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Where I live, 1X-1Y-1NT-2 as an invitational+ relay is called ‘checkback’ (or ‘Checkback’). Maybe this is not usual in English.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is the very question.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This excellent work is a clear example of typical twenty-first century bridge: no longer relying on experts' opinions (or ‘old wives' tales’ as Alan above calls it), but on objective analysis as much as possible.

For many years I used to be in favor of using Stayman on 4/333, because ‘if we have a 4-4 major fit, there is about 80% chance that partner is 4432’ (as the latter not only occurs twice as often as 4333, but is also twice as likely to produce a fit). Now I lean more and more towards blasting, or towards methods that reveal the dummy-bound hand only.
Jan. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
‘We (IMP) will keep you informed when we know more’ means: We will (also) keep you informed here and in English. However, my above post is as much as we know now.
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is as yet unclear why ‘the negotiations between the parties have not led to a positive result’. Everyone involved is keeping their mouth shut if not sealed. We (IMP) will keep you informed when we know more.
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For me, a notrump bid is and should be natural and allowed (and not alertable) if it primarily shows willingness to play in a notrump contract, not if it shows or denies certain distributions.
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I hear so many people state that they dislike defending 1NT.
Jan. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No methods were given, so I bid my usual 1NT Raptor. Not that this is ideal with these weak clubs, but it is better than double. And I have bad experience with overcalling 1 on four.
Jan. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play a 9–12 NT (first or second hand not vulnerable, otherwise 15–17) and I am satisfied with its results. I think 10–13 also makes a good range and it has the advantage that a 1NT rebid narrows down to a three-point range of 14–16 (with 2NT 17–18, and 19–20 in 2 rebid). Since the 9–12 option is missing in the poll, I voted 10–13.

Incidentally, over a four-point range it does not pay to invite with a flattish hand when the combined strength can be 25 HCP at the most.
Dec. 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As one of the few to spoil the unanimous vote, I play that a pass is forcing when we bid game, not preemptively, vulnerable against not, the rationale being that we just do not sacrifice then. This situation qualifies.
Dec. 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Dutch are allowed to have their own written defense to Multi open on the table (provided it be on a separate carrier, not their convention card). I have yet to see a single player actually do this. Multi users are not required to suggest a defense.

All in all, our liberal systems policy (virtually identical to the WBF one) poses no problems whatsoever in practice.
Dec. 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Where I live (Netherlands), Multi 2 is used by many if not most pairs of all levels except absolute beginners. It does not slow down the game.
Dec. 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here’s a literal translation of the definition of ‘artificial’ in the Dutch laws (third edition, 2014):

Artificial:
A call that has some other than its natural meaning.
The natural meaning of:
* a pass, is the willingness to play or defend the last bid in the auction, or to pass out the deal
* a double or redouble, is penalty
* a bid, is the willingness to play in the denomination named.

This is remarkable, as the rest of the Dutch laws is (or aims at being) a translation of the international Laws.
Dec. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This looks like debatable. In the 2007 international Laws, the term ‘natural’ is never defined and occurs in one place only: law 75B, which is more of an elucidating example than an actual law. In the Dutch version – basically an edited translation – of these same Laws, the term ‘artificial’ (Dutch: ‘kunstmatig’) is explicitly defined as the opposite of ‘natural’.
Dec. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“A call is still natural if it also shows distribution in another suit. For example, a 2H opening bid showing hearts and a minor with at least five hearts is natural.”

Note that this is at variance with the definition of ‘artificial’ (the very opposite of ‘natural’) in the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge:

“Artificial call — is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; or a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises or denies values other than in the last suit named.”

Where I live, we have a liberal systems policy (virtually the same as the WBF and EBL), and a 2 opening bid showing hearts and a minor with at least five hearts is very common (called ‘Muiderberg’ of ‘Dutch Two’). However, we do count this bid as artificial (and alertable).
Dec. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The right to appeal/review tends to function as a recorder reporting system for directors. It is my experience that directors do not appreciate being corrected in an appeal. Where I live, all appeals to the national appeal committee are openly (but anonymously) published.
Dec. 22, 2016
1 2 3 4 ... 24 25 26 27
.

Bottom Home Top