Join Bridge Winners

Bridge Winners Profile for Rosalind Hengeveld

Rosalind Hengeveld
Rosalind Hengeveld
  • 5
    Following
  • 9
    Followers
  • 9
    Posts
  • 0
    Favorites

Basic Information

Member Since
June 20, 2014
Last Seen
an hour ago
Member Type
Bridge Player
about me

Chair, Players Council, Netherlands Bridge League; Website Editor, Bridge Magazine IMP, Netherlands

Country
Netherlands

Bridge Information

BBO Username
RosalindH
ACBL Ranking
None
Sorry, this user has no cards yet.
1M-p-2M-p- invitation?
‘Losers’ in the sense of the Losing Trick Count (LTC) are not a ‘guesstimate’ but are formally defined, namely as the number of top honors (AKQ) partner must have for first, second and third round control in all four suits. Of course, one may use adjustments (as with any metric ...
Rohit Gupta's bidding problem: A JT9874 KQ64 AT
I abstained because the meaning and strength of 2NT was not given. Please appreciate that not everyone is familiar with what you may consider ‘standard’.
3NT - perhaps this is where Jim is heading
It is like stating that ‘you won't often go wrong with an agreement that 4NT is always ace-asking’, or that ‘doubles are always penalty’. You may not have misunderstandings, but you will often go wrong. That said, I do play that 3NT bids not falling under agreed generic conventions ...
3NT - perhaps this is where Jim is heading
We know that as the jump cue-bid.
Opening 2N for the minors. Is including a strong possibility 4 losers or less a good idea?
And the simple solution: use the 4NT opening bid for both minors and four losers. (4NT as specific ace-asking virtually never turns up.)
Opening 2N for the minors. Is including a strong possibility 4 losers or less a good idea?
That 2NT for minors is a good idea only if you have a good way to handle the full range of strong balanced hands is the open door of the day but is no less true. My partnerships include up to 20 balanced in 1 (not forcing), 21+ in ...
Tom Edwards's bidding problem: A72 JT65 A84 876
2 was standard and obvious decades ago; nowadays 1 is.
Opening 2N for the minors. Is including a strong possibility 4 losers or less a good idea?
The ‘very easy defense’ is true but in practice does not keep opponents from getting overboard or underboard. They invariably feel compelled to bid a major after our 2NT and do not have or ever get an idea of how high they belong in a major (if at all).
Opening 2N for the minors. Is including a strong possibility 4 losers or less a good idea?
I have played 2NT weak minors (5–10 HCP, 5-5+) for years. It does not come up very often – well, a few times a year – but when it does it tends to score points, perhaps more than any other opening bid I know. I have no experience with strong variants ...
Simon Weinberger's bidding problem: 653 9 AKJ52 K987
Aren't we once again glad to be playing Negative Free Bids?
.

Bottom Home Top