Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rosalind Hengeveld
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can understand a comment deemed inflammatory being deleted by a moderator. I cannot, however, understand why a suspension from posting should automatically follow – unless, of course, poster added or tried to add even more inflammatory comments. Otherwise, suspension is likely to further ignite the discussion rather than let it cool. Eagerly awaiting clarifying comment by moderator.
Aug. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We – at least I – don’t know why Gabby (Gabrielle Sherman) was just suspended on this forum, just like we really don't know why exactly Mike Passell was convicted of cheating. This whole issue is getting increasingly eerie. I for one like to stick to the few known facts.
Aug. 17, 2015
Rosalind Hengeveld edited this comment Aug. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The top-level is aware that certain pairs cheat.” (Gabrielle Sherman)

That is some shocking statement. Evidence to back it up would be great – but, yes, I understand that would be easier said than done. If indeed true, it would unfortunately be in line with what we see in other sports. And there is something like too much faith in humanity – again, unfortunately.
Aug. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Earn a living” (Nat Silver and others)? Passell was born in 1947, so is 67 or 68 years old and should be retired from ‘earning a living’.
Aug. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play the three-card limit raise in 2. The only raise in 1NT is the mini raise with ten losers. 1NT also includes the ‘jump invite’ with a six+ card suit, even in spades after 1 (as 1-3 is splinter and 1-1-any-3 is forcing). Over 1NT we play a form of Gazzilli, which includes 45xx.
Aug. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My rule #1: kickback (always with the usual four immediately above the trump suit) is on if and only if a suit was previously established as the trump suit. That is irrespective of whether the suit of the asking bid was previously bid naturally. This arrangement leads to a minimum of insecurities or misunderstandings.

I have played kickback for thirty years and the dreaded situation that ‘I would like to propose 4 in our probable 5-2 fit, but unfortunately it would be kickback’ has in all those years turned up only once.

A suit bid above kickback is exclusion, but – if only to avoid misunderstandings – only when bid with a jump (and after suit establishment). Then 4NT with a jump is exclusion in the kickback asking suit. 4NT non-jump is a cue-bid in the kickback asking suit.
Aug. 1, 2015
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
.

Bottom Home Top