Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Andrzej Matuszewski
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 98 99 100 101
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can give you a name… First obligation of a pair of experts is to play the same system - whatever it is.
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand was played with a really very good player, but only occasional as my partner. Our agreements were (and are) not very sophisticated. But once we have certain agreements we must follow them…
5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, I raised this particular case erronously.
Nevertheless thanks for discussion, which
is most the important aspect of this Forum (at least from my viewpoint).
The only hope of N is our 10. Even with our 10 singleton declarer has to guess or everyting depends on: who holds 8.
Wether N cashes A or not declarer must be set, it seems.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, Phil! This is simple but also quite real hope!
This might not work in case declarer has a small singleton in hearts.
Jan. 16
Andrzej Matuszewski edited this comment Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, Richard! I must rethink the problem to make a promotion more elegant.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Real distribution and a nice coup was as follows.
_______________A8x
_______________10xx
_______________AJxx3
_______________xx

97___________________________KQJxxx
7____________________________Ax
K1087________________________9x
KQJ742_______________________Axx

_______________106
_______________KQJ8654
_______________Q5
_______________96

After Q and diamonds continuation, N played another diamond.
Declarer has to ruff high. He continued with the next high spade.
N won and continued with diamonds. This promoted N's 8!!!

It is interesting that this promotion does not work if distribution of spades between N and S is:
A10x

8x
In this case declarer - after the first ruff - enters to dummy with clubs and plays 9!!!
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You mean: rebid 4?
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
9.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Additional quiz: What pd's hand allows us to set the contract (assuming the bidding was absolutely correct).
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Logically this option is non-necessary, but not everyone knows the formal logic.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This time the point is elsewhere, Richard!
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Frankly speaking, I don't know. It was an opps' declarer play problem.
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
6. Yes it plays the role!
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But we want to play in major even if pd has tripleton in one of majors.
OK. May this strategy is more appropriate at MPs.
Jan. 6
Andrzej Matuszewski edited this comment Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Strange: I thought that 3 is obvious…
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4 or 4 is obvious forcing at IMPs. It is non-sense to look for other partial at the level 4. But such arrangment is not obligatory at MPs. If we would have it I did not put this bidding problem.
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. If hearts divide wildly between opps all other suits can divide wildly too. Assume we have 1=1=5=6 and about 10 HCPs. 4 is ideal non-forcing bid for such situation. At MPs of course.
2. Ask for stopper has 2 aims. I agree that more common is seeking 3NT contract. The other is checking if pd has HCPs in a suit I have void.
3. I'm not sure if the third Kieran “Ridiculous” means that 4NT must be Blackwood. At MPs it is not obligatory.
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Quite radical opinion, Kieran. Somewhat personal…
Jan. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that at IMPs 4m should be interpreter as forcing because of “general logic”. But not at MPs.
Jan. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with both of you, but reality was as I wrote. Only very well established partnerships can reach the level of agreement that covers “everything”.
Here 4NT was also not forcing because it can be traeted either as Blackwood on spades or invitation to slam in NT.
Jan. 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 98 99 100 101
.

Bottom Home Top