Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rosalind Hengeveld
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wow! A good poll has at least three sensible options. This one has 21 different answers!
July 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of the many things I have learnt to avoid in bridge is playing treatments that are (1) forcing, (2) game invitational or better, but (3) not forcing to game. For one thing, such bids leave you stuck with long lists of subsequent situations that are forcing or not forcing. It is at least easier on memory to play all such bids just unconditionally forcing to game, with no exceptions. Examples are 2/1, fourth suit, third suit (lower unbid suit for me, as for John Adams above), et cetera.
July 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I presume ‘2N’ must be ‘3NT’?
July 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since we play raptor (a conventional ‘live’ 1NT overcall) and hence cannot overcall a natural 1NT, we play something much the opposite in responding to a take-out double: 1NT is any 0–6 HCP unsuitable for one of a suit, two of a suit is constructive, about 7–10 HCP. The idea is that ‘as second hand cannot bid 1NT naturally, advancer with a weak hand must bid it’. We do not call it ‘Lebensohl’, though, as doubler is not expected to bid over it, so the similarity with Lebensohl is weak.
July 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pass would often be a winner if opponents were vulnerable (quod non) and we were not.
July 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For me, double is decidedly for penalties with a heart stack, though usually not more than 16 or 17 points. Yes, INT doubled rates to make – but 2 rates to be worse, even undoubled.
July 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I play it, kickback is on only when a suit is established as trumps, where ‘established’ means: bid and supported or something to the same effect (such as showing a self-supporting suit). It is never for the last bid, unsupported suit. This is a fairly robust agreement. In a few cases, kickback is on by explicit agreement.
July 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would propose that, in the absence of a specific partnership agreement, a partnership plays what is considered standard, if there is one. Here, 2 being forcing is standard in any system I have ever seen. Hence, ‘partnership issue’ is not an excuse.
July 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree, but π (03,14) responses are (arguably) easier to count than 1430 responses. As I stated above, the latter offer no advantage whatsoever to Kickback or four of agreed minor. A practical advantage of Kickback is that, if a bid is ace asking at all – for which there are rules, of course – then it is certain for which trump suit it is.
July 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I learnt bridge on my own from a book at age thirteen, because I wished to understand the weekly bridge column in the newspaper. I never actually played the game until a few years later, around age sixteen. Only at nineteen did I start playing regularly at clubs.

My first bridge book (in Dutch) would state that ‘with 4441 you open below the singleton’ – without ever explaining the term ‘singleton’ (not an existing word in Dutch outside bridge).
July 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The advantages of 1430 over π (03,14) are slight. There is no advantage when spades or diamonds are trumps. When clubs are trumps, with 1430 we can ask if partner has two aces rather than one – but not if they have one ace rather than none. Hearts as trumps provide the most advantage of 1430, allowing us to ask for the queen of trumps below the five level after partner responds 5 showing one ace (or four).

Using kickback (four immediately above the trump suit for ace asking), 1430 offers no advantage at all and in fact does not make sense.
July 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hazard a double? For me, double would be negative (they have a fit, we haven't yet). Double is actually what I would ‘hazard’ in the question mark position.
July 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Double of 1 would have shown 4-4 in the majors.” I presume, however, that 1 could be 5-4 majors and therefore does not deny four spades. Hence, I simply take 2 to show four spades, extra values and forcing one round, but not to game, something like a reverse. As a rule, I don't take partner for 6-5 until they bid their reverse suit twice.
July 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In Tromsø, at three out of twelve tables a pair ended up in a grand slam off three cashable aces (women pairs, semifinal A, session 2, board 18). I am ashamed to admit I was one of them. And mind you, this was the semifinal A, so the ‘tourist’ pairs were out. And it was (in my case) using 03,14 responses to kickback (would not have been different using 1430 to RKCB). So, it is going to be tough selling me that ‘1340’ is playable.
July 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I play Exclusion, a repeat of the Exclusion suit (in the void) asks for the trump queen. Assuming the Exclusion ask is below five of the trump suit, and that responses are 03,14 (so that only the first two responses leave the queen unknown), this bid will always be available below six of the trump suit. Also, it is a ‘wake up’ type of bid that will not easily be forgotten or misunderstood.

Asking for the queen below five of the trump suit would be possible only if (1) the Exclusion ask is three steps lower than the trump suit (e.g., 5 if spades are trumps); (2) the response is the first step (e.g., 5 over 5, presumably zero or three aces outside the void); (3) asker would nevertheless still be interested; (4) the queen ask would be the next step. This would be too rare if Exclusion is always above ace-asking level, which in turn is a useful criterion to avoid the misunderstandings for which Exclusion is infamous.
July 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3NT over a preempt has an extremely wide range of some 15–25 HCP. There is simply no sensible alternative.
July 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play a form of mini-Michaels whereby the cue-bid of a minor shows five or more hearts and four or more spades. Five spades, four hearts and overcall strength is biddable by overcalling 1 and following up with 2.
July 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As to the ‘consolation’ nature of semifinals B: in the European open in Tromsø Sandra Rimstedt & Emma Sjöberg ended up winning the final of the women pairs via the semifinal B.
July 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apart from the players – I have not played against a single clear exception – I thought the Norwegian residents in Tromsø were very polite, friendly and helpful.
July 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Every system has holes. The challenge in designing a system is to keep the holes as rarely occurring and as manageable as possible. Also, if a pair has a system overview (not a convention card), it makes sense to explicitly mention the (known) holes and to provide guidelines on how to deal with them.

For example, in my own system 1-2 is game forcing, 1-3 is a mixed raise in diamonds, 1-2NT is natural and non-forcing. (You may or may not like these methods, but that is not the point here.) Now, an unpassed invitational hand of some eleven HCP with long clubs is a hole. Such a hand turns up much more rarely than a game force with clubs or a mixed raise in diamonds; hence this choice. And this hole is explicitly stated in our system overview (which has the form of a website) with a ‘hole’ icon.
July 17, 2015
Rosalind Hengeveld edited this comment July 17, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top