Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rosalind Hengeveld
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 45 46 47 48
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What to open on 6-5 (‘rule of eleven’) hands like this is an old dilemma. Lately, top players appear to favor opening four (like 4 here). The only voice other than one or four in the six-card suit would be special opening bids, such as ‘Robins Nest’ proposed by Larry Robbins (http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/opening-3nt4c4d-robins-nest-convention/). I still play the modified version using only the 4 and 4 opening bids. We have positive experiences with these and they occur more often than natural preemptive 4/.
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Explanation of 3 says ‘5-5+, 13–15, not forcing’.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Prefer 4 to 1. Yes, preempts can be annoying. Of course, 6 is on a finesse and is therefore lucky to make.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it will – or at least may – depend on your metric for ‘field strength’ by participant (some rating? number of master points? other?).

Geomean = geometric mean on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_mean

Speaking of ‘geomean’: I once argued and published that for butler (or cross-imp) standings of pairs who played different numbers of boards – as in round robins of world championships, where the list is invariably headed and trailed by pairs who played relatively few matches – we should use the imp balance divided by the geometric mean of the numbers of boards played and the total number of boards. In other words: when a pair played n out of N boards, its weighted butler score should be (total imps scored) / square root of (n*N).
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But then, does anyone still play Stayman over 2NT?
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Could be, but any time south has equal length in the minors, also with 3-3, he may want his partner to pick one.
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It may make a difference just when 2 was explained as a four-card constructive raise: immediately after the alert (upon request I presume), or after the auction. In the latter case, north does not seem to have any unauthorized information. In the former case, possibly but not likely either. North knows that south does not have a ‘third hand’ opening bid and may have wanted to reconsider, but is likely also taking some risk. Looks to me like no infringement.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In this kind of position where bidding would be at the five level, I only bid if I think I will make it. That is not the case here.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think – or at least I prefer to play – that 1-2, 1-2 and 1-2 show five-card suits, while 1/-2 is a ‘multibid’ covering most or all remaining game-forcing hands (possibly excluding some or all with prime fits, and possibly including a three-card limit raise). 1-2 need not show five.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sandwich 1NT: ditto.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2: in my methods – none were stated – this shows a weak hand with five hearts and three to five spades (dubbed ‘K2’ after the mountain).

By the way, in most jurisdictions including WBF/EBL it is (normally) illegal to open this hand at the one level.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Turks are Zafer Tigan and Salim Yılankıran. They more or less won an appeal, too. Tigan was not a player but a kibitzer to Yılankıran.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is correct.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Possible reasons why the EBL would not be able to just disregard the CAS's decision include:
* The EBL's statutes state that it will subject itself to the CAS and its decisions
* The EBL has previously agreed to submit the case to the CAS and respect its decision.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can they?
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The CAS will probably publish its complete decision. (It hasn’t yet; I checked.)
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The first, 3 as a virtual transfer to 3NT, is an old idea by Bergen, Marty, ‘Jump Cuebid as a Transfer to 3NT’, in The Contract Bridge Bulletin, August 1986, page 56–57.

Splinter over a minor is neither very useful nor very frequent.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, it is clear that partner has Unauthorized Information (UI), that she probably ought not to have bid 6, and that if she does anyway, director will probably adjust the score.

However, a long time ago, when I was in a similar possession of UI, and I ‘ethically’ – or so I thought – passed what would not be our best contract, I got scolded by partner and later by other good players, who all stated that ‘you are not supposed to hang yourself and your partner; you should leave that to the director’. In other words, what a director would rule and what a player should do are two different things, so they suggest.

Do they have a point?
Jan. 10
Rosalind Hengeveld edited this comment Jan. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With just three losers, is it unreasonable to hope partner's double covers two?
Jan. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Too weak for vulnerable 1 even by my standards. :)
Jan. 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 45 46 47 48
.

Bottom Home Top