Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rosalind Hengeveld
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I open 2, a Multi which includes a game-forcing with diamond as the longest suit. Over 2 or 2 I follow up with 3NT, ‘game try’.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3: transfer to 3, most likely right contract.
March 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play the cue-bid (here 3) as a mixed raise.
March 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It makes sense to play redouble as forcing up to two of opener’s suit. Hence, 2 is forcing.
March 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the absence of Namyats or Gazzilli (see Martin above) 4 shows eight playing tricks and that is what North has. With these secondary values (queens and jacks), South is the overbidder.
March 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2, which in modern bridge shows five spades.
March 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Double would have been negative, denying four spades.
March 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I read both books and I think they are a great leap forward. That is because they present the best feasible scientific analysis instead of just ‘expert opinion’. And the authors duly describe the drawbacks and weaknesses of their chosen method based on double-dummy analysis rather than single-dummy or real-life played deals, and why they chose it.

While some excellent bridge books have seen the light, from a scientific viewpoint the bridge literature is of a sadly low level, even many of the ‘good’ books. Problems are:
* emphasis on personal hobby horses
* over-reliance on ‘expert experience’ rather than evidence
* no mention of different views as held by other experts
* anecdotal evidence (a few sample deals that pretend to ‘prove’ pet methods)
* no references for statements
* no literature lists.

Ever since I learned bridge about half a century ago, I have observed a steady move from a reliance on ‘flair’ to a more scientific approach to the game nowadays. The players are a different kind, at least in my view. The bridge literature tends to lag behind. The ‘Winning Leads’ books by Bird en Anthias, however, I see as typical early specimens of 21st century bridge literature. My partner and I have been making better leads since we read the books.

Bird, David en Anthias, Taf, Winning Notrump Leads, Master Point Press, 2011 (ISBN 978-1-55494-759-1).
Bird, David en Anthias, Taf, Winning Suit Contract Leads, Master Point Press, 2012 (ISBN 978-1-55494-769-0).
March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Should it become any relevant later, I play that a 4 opening bid shows six spades and an unknown five+ card minor, four to five losers.
March 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Definitely. Just last Tuesday my partner opened 3 on AJ8632 and a side ace (6421), first hand all vulnerable, cross-imps. Dutch players are much in love with preempting a lot. I have seen some information that French players are not. By the way, we rarely if ever psych.
March 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I presumed North, not West bid 3.
March 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1NT: Raptor, ditto.
March 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2NT, as above. I open any 18–20 balanced 1, which frees 2NT here.
March 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Exclusion is a useful gadget, but it is infamous for misunderstandings as to when it applies. It is clear there are situations where five of a new suit logically ‘must’ be or had best be Exclusion. However, just for clarity’s sake, I prefer to stick to the traditional rule that only a jump bid can be Exclusion.
March 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play that a pass is forcing after we bid game vulnerable against not, and other than with a purely preemptive bid (such as a 4 opening bid). Here 3 is preemptive, but 4 is not.
March 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the applicable jurisdiction has a stop rule (with or without stop card), then a quick pass over a preempt is not so much ‘unethical’, it is a simple infringement of the stop rule. That is probably not what poster was referring to.
March 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The real question is what 2 over (my) 2 would mean. I think it really should mean ‘four(+) spades, no hearts, no extra values, not forcing’.
March 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play a bid in opponent's suit as forcing to game after we opened the bidding (not after we overcalled). Hence, any response below game level is forcing.
March 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have had opponents ask whether ‘≤ 12’ (for 1/-1NT) on our card means more than twelve or less than twelve. (It means, of course, up to twelve; and the lower limit is not zero but may at times be less than 5 HCP.)
March 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are no range restrictions.
March 19
.

Bottom Home Top