Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ig Nieuwenhuis
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
how about:
1 - X - 2 - 2
3 - 4 -
that should imply 4's, assuming of course (which I do) that 3 would be a one-round-force (otherwise he should have started with 2-overcall and then a later X)
July 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dorn,
just my opinion: the hand your partner expects starts with a double and follows up with 4.
The direct 4 is this kind of hand; the one that already needs some help to make it but is not interested in other denominations.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
barring some unlikely distributions (and honour-placements) this should be a good contract as partner probably has at least 5 but probably 6 clubs. If the opps are bidding on no points in spades, the Ace will provide a discard for a losing and partner needs to find a red king somewhere useful.
Thought about 6NT, but this seems safer
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I regularly describe my fascination with bridge as: a new puzzle to solve every 7.5 minutes.
That may be seen as including the logic/math part, but when asked to elaborate I also mention the social aspect and the opps trying to make the puzzles as difficult as possible… since that is a large part of the fun :-)
June 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In our agreements the 1-bid (normally 6-9 without a 4-card-major) may contain a GF-hand that can still bid a 4-card-major later.
similarly the 1NT-bid (which promises 's) may contain an invitational hand with a 4-card-major.
Note: we play 12-14-NT. this has a lot of consequences for the bidding after each transfer-bid from 1 to 1NT.
June 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
we pre-alert about 6 things about our agreements, which are not quite mainstream (not even in NL: see below). I think the most important base of our agreements is that we bid a lot on distribution (which is also reflected in the distribution of handtypes over our various opening-bids)

However, system-freedom in the Netherlands is a lot wider than in the US. This freedom is used extensively; you meet all kinds of agreements. The fact that our sandwich-bids can be (don't have to be) extremely weak is the only unusual part of this agreement.

We also have other agreements that allow us to enter the auction, aimed at low-level take-outs that may be good sacrifices. For example: opposite a passed partner a weak jump is very wide-range (we explain it as: opposite a passed hand he doesn't see game)

As I stated above: so far I think we've won more imps on this type of bidding than we lost.
June 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
X shows both remaining colors with emphasis on the highest; 1NT with emphasis on the lowest.
Emphasis: most often longer but with equal length it's stronger.

Strength is defined as: from 0 points upward (and that has happened a few times).
the only position we're a bit (un?)reasonably careful is red against white.

So far we've not lost many imps on this, but we do sometimes lose some points for going for -500 against 420 or 450
June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe that a well designed mix of strong and weak hands in 2-level-plus opening bids will outscore such a system in the long run (but I will readily admit I'm biased as that is the way we designed our system).
interesting question though
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
how about South bidding 2 before supporting 's?
That would make the auction gameforcing at least. In my own agreements the correction of 2NT (over 2) to 3 offers a slam-positive hand and invites cues. so the follow-up I'm proposing is:
1 - (1) - 1 - pass
2 - 2NT
3 - 4
4 (also promises a -cue) - ???
either RKC or 5 will then get you to slam
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I assumed that 2 showed A mini-splinter (which is my own agreement :-)), in which case I can bid 4.
If it specifically shows a -minisplinter I think you have to lead …
Feb. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
agree, but would first want to know which types of hands XX
Jan. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
even in (very) basic precision this sequence MUST have been discussed. So I bid the result of that discussion.
Jan. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
in my agreements: Yes.
Jan. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yup, I would open this 2NT (with puppet that/transfers doesn't miss a major-fit)
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
depends on agreed meaning of several bids.
AND: 3 preemptive? in 's, with 's? that may influence applicable agreements
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've bid my 6-5. Partner may need to know my -control to place the contract.
Note: in my book 2 agrees 's as he did not bid an immediate 2 showing better 's.
However: I would have another problem as we open this hand differently and then a -bid would be on the 3-level. Reaching an optimal contract would be much more difficult then.
Jan. 18
Ig Nieuwenhuis edited this comment Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
this is what Namyats was made for …
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What's the upper limit of a ‘light’ preempt?
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
since the opps showed 2 suits:
could partner be offering a -stop and not a -stop?
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm the doubler, BUT:
I have agreements about this kind of sandwich-bids
Jan. 14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
.

Bottom Home Top