Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rosalind Hengeveld
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My suggestion – and note Gabor's post above – is to abbreviate as little as reasonably possible. As a rule of thumb: abbreviate only if in normal speech the abbreviation is usually uttered as such, as an abbreviation, not as the expression for which it stands. For example: ‘ACBL’, yes; you say ‘A-C-B-L’; ‘5cM’, no (unless previously introduced), most people would say that in full as ‘five-card majors system’. Some exceptions, sure, but that is the idea.
April 10, 2015
Rosalind Hengeveld edited this comment April 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What would be the point of a retransfer? I’d think we want doubler on lead against 2.
April 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tabular overview of my methods (text is Dutch but not essential):
http://rosalind.home.xs4all.nl/bridge/romi/tegen1x.htm#overzicht-2kl
April 3, 2015
Rosalind Hengeveld edited this comment April 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My system notes for my two partnerships have the form of a website in simple HTML. Advantages are:

* Always get the latest version after frequent updates.
* Flexible navigation via hyperlinks to further bidding, to explanations of terms, et cetera.
* Always with me on a smartphone (or on a tablet computer).
* In case of director’s call for alleged wrong explanation, simply refer to web address on convention card to let them ascertain that explanation was correct.
* Comprehensive references and index.

Here's an example. It runs in Dutch (our native language), but you'll get the idea.

http://rosalind.home.xs4all.nl/bridge/romi/
April 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this not the right way to poll; the combinations may blur preferences for individual matches. Better to poll single matches and simply show the top two.
March 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would understand a second double as negative, often based on three-card heart support. 3 would be invitational with full support. A ‘competitive’ (non-invitational) 3, being three-over-three, would preferably be based on five hearts and would therefore be too rare to cater systemically to.
March 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Totally agree; that is why – in the ‘live’ position’ – I strongly prefer two-suited overcalls that show specific suits, such as Ghestem and variations thereof.
March 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 as Ghestem ( & ) or Michaels ( & minor). No good reason why this should have an upper strength limit, as bidder always gets another chance.
March 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks everybody for your valuable contributions. It is clear that this convention did not yet have a name, other than possibly as an adjunct to Namyats. It further looks like Vic Mitchell is, if not its inventor, at least the first upon whom it can be traced. I therefore propose that the convention be named ‘Mitchell’.

For completeness sake: (1) It is, of course, inappropriate to list just ‘Mitchell’ on a convention card. (2) Any meaning for a 3NT opening bid, including Mitchell, is legal in all WBF and EBL tournaments and championships and stages of such events, and in any league-sanctioned competition in the Netherlands.
March 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I found the following explanation of ‘Alder Transfer Pre-empts’ on Phillip Alder's own website. It features 3 as ‘a four-bid in either minor’ and 3NT as ‘your call’. Therefore, it does not appear like Alder invented 3NT as a broken minor preempt.
http://www.phillipalderbridge.com/TRANSPRE.HTM
March 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But did Alder (or Salisbury) invent this use of 3NT or were they first to publish it, especially before Mitchell?
March 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2/ showing exactly a five-card suit with a side minor is called ‘Muiderberg’ in the Netherlands, where it is quite popular (and legal in any competition). It is known as ‘Dutch Twos’ abroad. And yes, a strict subset of a legal type of call is always legal (where I live).
March 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did Vic Mitchell, in addition to 4/ as what is now known as ‘Namyats’, also invent 3NT as four of a minor preempt? If so, ‘Mitchell’ would be a suitable name for the convention.
March 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, I had not seen this before. The name could be confusing, however, since there is also an (increasingly popular) use for a 3NT opening bid as a strong four-level opening in either major, quite equivalent to the traditional Namyats 4/ opening bids. That use might well get dubbed ‘Namyats 3NT’, too.
March 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure, my (WBF, not ACBL) convention card duly has “preemptive (not solid) in or ” and I intend to keep it that way. But while most conventions have names such as ‘Namyats’, ‘Gambling’ et cetera for quick and easy reference, why wouldn't this one, if only a name of its inventor or one who first published about it?
March 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Come play in The Netherlands. The things you mention (transfer-Walsh, multi 2) are legal to play here. Only certain ‘highly unusual methods’ and ‘brown sticker conventions’ are restricted.
March 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see. The bidding comes across (to me) as featuring some ‘would not be my choice’ – especially the opening 15–17 NT on a good 18 – but not as ‘very odd’. What exactly were they accused or suspected of? (The match was played behind screens.)
Feb. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can you (or anyone) supply the hands in question and the ‘very odd’ bidding, or a link to same?
Feb. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Though not an answer to the question, this shows the advantage of having a weak variety in 2 (weak two in diamonds is easiest): as the weak variety accours most often, it urges opponents to play sound overcalls and raises (as over a vanilla weak two) and it all but keeps them from preempting. To answer the question: I play that ‘when pass would be forcing, double is for penalties’.
Feb. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play 2NT as ‘scrambling’, meaning a choice of suits or otherwise no clear-cut bid. A natural 2NT will not often be the contract where we belong.
Feb. 19, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top