Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Andrzej Matuszewski
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 86 87 88 89
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At MPs : 3
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My articles are in general very controversial so they receive very few likes. Many likes receive colleagues, who have doubts about the contents I propose. So - from my viewpoint: let's sum all likes including comments to article.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hint: They definitely have troubles in communication! But have many HCPs. So probably the point is: how many overtricks they will take: 0, 1, 2, 3…
Sept. 18
Andrzej Matuszewski edited this comment Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very good remark! He must be 2 suited. But his pd did not want to play at level 3.
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK! Most dangerous is the situation, when they will double 3 and then consequently 3 :-(
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hint: You are not a candidate for squeezing.
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After my 3 there is no cost. Double is risky.
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that we need an ideal pd's holding to win 4 or 5. To solve this problem “scientifically” we have to perform a simulation. Therefore this problem shows that a “black” day when robot will be better than human player is coming :-(
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Main problem: Have we a Chance to win a game?!! Yes we have! Second question: what is a best way to look for it: X or 3?
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How many diamonds can have S?
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the above sense Mike can be right!
In certain tactical situtions (playing in a bot tournament), it can be proved that opening 1NT with AJxx Q10 Q AKQxxx will be effective in the long run.
The same effectiveness against experts can not be proved.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand was from absolutely normal tournament. The only (partially) unsual component of this problem is “non-routine” behavior of S. You can not ban such players.

If someone can read in Polish I can give a link, where I discuss expert approach to certain bot tournamets (which are very popular and emotional). For such tournaments the openings similar to S's can be normal (if not optimal…) in certain tactical situations.
Sept. 14
Andrzej Matuszewski edited this comment Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Formally I have to show clubs. But at MPs 3NT is in average the best possible contract. Showing clubs I help them to lead spades instead of other color.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can tell to all of you one thing, which - may be - Mike will not like.
Intuition and fantasy of player also have their value.
I change a bit a hand and make an analysis.

______________103
______________9854
______________K98543
______________5

K865_______________________________Q92
KJ3________________________________A762
1072_______________________________AJ6
932________________________________J108

______________AJ74
______________Q10
______________Q
______________AKQ764

53QA
Q73A - now there is no problem: duck or not
24K10
6x9J
AKQ we follow
7 we can give hearts

But for the next W must perform very deep analysis!!!!!
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems that in case pd is weak, it is better to bid at MPs: 2. IT IS NAIVE (in most cases). They will find their spades!
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My aim is artistic. I'm trying to discuss hands that are deep. Also in sense that there exists a psychological content. Very often writing about a hand I do not have a specific position or do not have my favorit line of play.
Here I tried to impose certain atmosphere with non-typical opponents.
Result of discussion favors ducking. In reality declarer had 4=2=Q=AKQxxx. Many players are in bridge not because they try to be robots with tousands of hints “programmed”. I do not know if you know, Mike, the format Robot Rebate 55% in BBO. This tournament very often favors non-typical methods. AND IT IS FAR FROM GOULASH.
Sept. 13
Andrzej Matuszewski edited this comment Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pd asked if I have a spades stopper?
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some arguments must be added. All of them in favour of NON-DUCKING. And all of them connected with this declarer's holding:
Ayyy-yy-Q-AKQxxx.
1. Ducking is bad not only in case declarer has K. There are some other holdings bad for us, too.
2. One of them is: AJ(or 8)xx KJ Q AKQxxx. For this configuration it is better to change to 2 instead od A. Richard came to the same conclusion.
3. Holding Ayyy-yy-Q-AKQxxx can not be excluded because 7 given by pd confirms it. It would be excluded if pd gave 2 in the first diamonds trick.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, without K declarer will not take 9 tricks! Pd will find out that I must have at least singleton A (after first diamonds trick), so it is not necessary for him to keep his second (now) diamonds jack! Or he can keep one diamond, taking into account that I must have A.

Therefore unless declarer has 7 clubs, we can duck the first round of diamonds. We can not reject the possibility of 7 clubs in hands of declarer, but this option gives 4 hearts to pd (i.e. he has 4=4=3=2) and a chance to lead hearts instead of spades.
Sept. 12
Andrzej Matuszewski edited this comment Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
King is practically not necessary. Both defenders will keep some diamonds not being sure the exact count of partner. This will allow declarer to establish something in majors.
Sept. 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 86 87 88 89
.

Bottom Home Top