Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rosalind Hengeveld
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On counting shape, it helps to know by heart the more common partitions of a suit into four hands, or of a hand into four suits: 4333, 4432, 5332, 5422 et cetera. This makes for easier and more effortless counting than by actually calculating.
May 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apart from agreeing on 2 being forcing to game, it makes sense to agree on how to proceed over 2. Simple, natural and effective is to play ‘up the line’: lowest biddable feature first. Here, any four card heart suit would take priority. Did partner support diamonds on three instead?
May 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What to bid if you bid would depend on methods, while apparently poster is primarily interested in whether to bid at all, which is fine with me.
May 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Note that, under most jurisdictions including WBF's, bids at the four level or higher after the first round of bidding should not be alerted.
May 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have played Gazzilli for years with good results. Problems arise only when after 1 (hardly after 1) responder is short in the suit opened and weak, while opener is not strong. That does not happen too often. However: simple versions of Gazzilli do not work; working versions of Gazzilli are complicated. For the interested, see my Gazzilli (in Dutch) at http://rosalind.home.xs4all.nl/bridge/2-over-1/1hs.htm#1h-1sa
May 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play that way, too. And recently some partnerships play double showing four or five spades, 1 no spades (the idea being to put overcaller on lead against a spade contract). Anyway, I would not suppress the spades on this hand.
May 12, 2015
Rosalind Hengeveld edited this comment May 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Matter of fact: poster is not that ‘new’; has been a member since August 31, 2014. Maybe, after enough votes are in, they will clarify why they posted this poll. Until then, I refrain from speculating.
May 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“And is it different if the lead asks for count?” Good point. Count is most likely to be useful in situations calling for cashing out. Therefore, I think suit preference should take priority when dummy shows up with a singleton (and at least a trump).
May 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play both overcalls (1)-2 and (1)-2 as ‘Flannery’, showing five or more hearts and four or more spades, basically constructive. Advancer's 2 or 2NT, respectively, is a relay for lengths and strength, the latter in terms of losers. This works fine and allows us to keep the useful 2 weak jump overcall over 1.

The rationale is that after overcalling with 1, it may be difficult to show a four-card spade suit, as one often wants to double the next round without four spades.

For the curious, here is our relay structure (in Dutch):
http://rosalind.home.xs4all.nl/bridge/romi/tegen1x.htm#hsvraag
May 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A bid not being alerted (nor alertable) does not imply that it means what you think it means. Virtually every bid in bridge has negative inferences. That should not make all such bids alertable, as that would deprive the alert of its very purpose: alerting opponents to possibly unexpected meanings beyond mere inferences.
May 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“One problem I have is defining clearly when it applies.” Yes, that is the one problem everyone is likely to have with ‘generic’ conventions: those that apply in more than a small and limited set of situations. Good-bad is an example; others are ace-asking, negative doubles, and a few more, including play conventions such as Lavinthal. Rules as to when such generic conventions apply should of course be as simple as possible, but often cannot be as simple as one would wish them to be and still remain reasonably effective.

For my own rules and exceptions for good-bad (in Dutch), see:
http://rosalind.home.xs4all.nl/bridge/2-over-1/generiek.htm#good-bad
May 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Note that if I do not double, partner will tend to lead a diamond. If I would hate that (and would not worry about 5 making redoubled) I would double.
May 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm just so happy to live in a country with a fairly liberal systems policy: basically equal to the WBF/EBL one, with in most competition only ‘Highly Unusual Methods’ and ‘Brown Sticker Conventions’ illegal. And virtually no one complains about such systems policy.
April 29, 2015
Rosalind Hengeveld edited this comment April 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Talk, yes, ‘merge’, no. I think the ACBL (and any national bridge authority) should basically adopt the WBF Systems Policy – just as they adopt the international Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Of course, being represented in the WBF, the ACBL always has (and has already had) a say in the WBF Systems Policy.
April 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Where I live, uBid costs € 1.39 (about $ 1.51) a month or € 12.95 ($ 14.09) a year.
April 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sounds like not fundamentally different from uBid (newinbridge.com/ubid). The latter is (as yet) for Android only and is paid, but not expensive.
April 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Reminds me of a thoughtful quotation by Jeff Rubens (The Secrets of Winning Bridge, Robert Hale, 1969, ISBN 0-7091-1442-7, page 232): “Many players are uncomfortable with a complicated style in which there is much to remember; others get nervous if unsure of the exact meaning of partner's bids or the type and strength of hand partner has shown by his bidding.” Rubens' type 1 players will probably tend to agree with Kit, type 2 players (including me) will respectfully disagree.
April 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As the very object of a preempt is to take away bidding space, I suppose we would be lucky enough to end up in the right strain at the right level and seldom have the luxury to choose where to declare. Even without preemption, one does not too often get to choose from which side to declare four of a major. And as usual, even knowing both our hands would not always settle which hand had best declare. I would rather optimize reaching the best suit contract from whichever side.
April 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My default bid over fourth suit is always opener's higher suit. The rationale behind this in that in this suit extra length, while certainly possible, is less likely.
April 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would pass with any balanced hand. I define a notrump to be weak if it can systemically be weaker than 14 HCP (so, the strongest weak NT is 13–15, the weakest strong NT is 14–16). Over a weak notrump, regardless of how weak, I play a double in second hand as 15+ HCP, in fourth hand as about 12+ HCP.
April 23, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top