Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rosalind Hengeveld
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And (in Dutch) om the IMP website: http://www.imp-bridge.nl/nieuws-archief/hoe-fisher-schwartz-vals-speelden
June 4, 2016
4NT
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A double of a 4 overcall is nowadays played by many as basically negative. This means it shows ‘cards’, does not show anything in spades, but can be freely passed by a hand that does not fancy playing at the five level.
June 1, 2016
4NT
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, in many cases a competitive 4NT is ‘two places to play’.
May 31, 2016
4NT
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And for Schollaardt, this 4NT is a slam try in diamonds.
May 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The hand and has 14 cards; you mean AQ9x Kxx xxxx xx?
May 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I cannot speak for Huub, but I would bid 1.
May 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The cue-bid is forcing to fit or 2NT. Any new suit after it is a one-round force.
May 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I require a five-card suit for the jump and about 8–10 HCP. I bid one with up to ten HCP, cue-bid with more.
May 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
‘No agreement’ might be the correct reply to an inquiry for meaning. But the very objective for this poll seems to be how you would take 3NT when you do have no agreement.
May 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Best is the double finesse (76%). Second best is to start with the ace (66%). Sucker play is to finesse and then play the ace (58%).
May 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
People who do not look at the ‘other carding agreements’ section typically do not listen to pre-alerts either.
May 22, 2016
Rosalind Hengeveld edited this comment May 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the Netherlands, carding agreements are never alertable nor pre-alertable. The alerting policy speaks explicitly of ‘bidding agreements’ (Dutch: ‘biedafspraken’). The WBF Alerting Policy, too, speaks explicitly of ‘bids’ or ‘calls’ being alertable.

The only Dutch regulation to speak of pre-alerting is the conditions of contest (Dutch: Wedstrijdreglement), article 6.3, that speaks of ‘agreements against which opponents may wish to agree on a defense’, which implies pertaining to calls only. I could not find anything about pre-alerts in the WBF regulations (maybe I did not look well enough).

The channel to communicate carding agreements is clearly the convention card.
May 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Look after your zeroes; opponents will look after your tops.
May 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why not? Many magazines (including IMP) capitalize the names of conventions, irrespective of whether they are equal to a name of a natural person. Only designations that are not to be considered names, such as ‘take-out’, are not capitalized.
May 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do not bid once more just to show you had your bid last time.
May 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“A good slam is one that makes (Bob Hamman I think).”

Mrs. Guggenheim I think.
May 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure, many opponents and some partners would reply: “Couldn't you figure that?”
May 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I usually ask. That is because the ‘rectifications’ for established revokes are severe. An example of a situation where I would not ask is: partner declares six of a suit and opponents start off with an ace and king, partner ruffing the second one. Now, if partner revokes, they are down anyway.
May 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Makes sense – but that was not the question.
May 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The point of Last Train is to show some slam interest without going beyond game level, and irrespective of controls. It is a prime example of contemporary bidding being more quantitative than in the past century.
May 6, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top