Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Gábor Szőts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 90 91 92 93
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I did play that. However, if that hand type can be excluded (e.g. because of strong BAL 2 opening or 1 including strong BAL hands) I'd play it as Goldman suggested in Aces Scientific: a game forcing 3163 hand (so that you don't have to jump to 3 in your 3-card clubs).
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We bid as follows:
3 then 4: 55 majors, no slam interest
3, then over 3 4: 55 majors, slam interest
3, then over 3 4: 46, slam interest
3, then over 3 4: 46, no slam interest
Jan. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd bid 3 GF.
Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“In a field of 130 pairs -1100 was worth 20% of the matchpoints.”

Nice result in the circumstances.
Dec. 31, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner, with (43)15 would have probably made a TO double. Maybe even with 3325. If he had 4225 then RHO opted for a penalty double with 5 or 6 cards in hearts. Only when partner has 2425 would it be advisable to run but he might have overcalled 1 with that shape.
My bet is that partner has 6+ clubs and 1- diamonds. I am not running.
Dec. 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems to me that the opps misjudged the bidding, misjudged the play and probably still lost only about 5 IMP's, not 10.
Dec. 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
However much I agree with what you say, Debbie, to expect my opponents (and myself) to remember to give back my CC seems an utopia to me. And to have several CC's by me just in case I lose them… once I took 3 of them with me but had only one remaining the next week. And I can tell you I am quite tidy with my things.
The only solution (and a very good one at that) seems to me what we currently do in our pairs championship. We play on tablets and everyone has to submit their CC in advance. This CC can then be viewed by the opponents at any time by tapping on a button.
Dec. 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought the real problem would be a weak balanced hand. That's why I think forcing NT and Gazzilli cannot be played together.
Dec. 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very interesting ideas here. Thanks all for sharing them.
Dec. 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks everybody for your opinions and suggestions. Much appreciated.
Dec. 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hungarian first division.
Nov. 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael: He swears under his nose. What I would probably do is transfer to spades, pass and hope.
As far as I know the Italians also do not have a solution to that. But you must know that better than me.
Nov. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have not thought about details yet.
Nov. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here is a simple response structure, using only 5 bids:
- 2: 4+, no 4+
- 2: puppet to 2NT, denies 4+. Continuations as over a 2NT opening, taking into consideration that responder cannot have 4+.
- 2NT: balanced slam try
- 3: 4-4 in the majors or 5+4+
- 3: 5+4

Of course you can do better but this cannot be hard to remember.
Nov. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Alternatively play 2♦ as 18-19 NT and put the weak 2♦ into the 2♣ opening”
Yes, that is something I am considering too.
Nov. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for all those responses and discussion.

For the record, I was East. These were my thoughts:
With a distributional hand I would have bid something over 3, so my pass over 3 must be a (semi)balanced hand. When partner passed over 4 I thought he must be strong or have spade shortness. As I did not have spade wastage, I bid on, and cue-bid my K on the way.

I accept that my reasoning was not flawless. In the heat of the battle I do make such mistakes. But I don't think my mum would not have forgiven me for that. My partner certainly did.
Nov. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3. Then 4 over 3, 4 over 3NT or 4, 5 over 4.
Nov. 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I myself post problems it is of interest to me how many days you think I should wait before showing the solution? BW readers seem quite inpatient to me sometimes.
Nov. 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here is the whole hand. You can even watch how the play went at all of the tables in all of the boards. It is worth studying how to use the lovebridge software, I assure you it is great!
https://vugraph.lovebridge.com/screen/visoft_1447835_7_1?screen=replay&ns=1447818&board=10
Nov. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The 9 came from declarer.

In this partnership first priority is attitude.
Nov. 1, 2019
Gábor Szőts edited this comment Nov. 1, 2019
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 90 91 92 93
.

Bottom Home Top