Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Lars Allard
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What about 1? Does it have any merit?
March 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, i forgot this info in the original poll.
March 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Better than sex
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Look to http://german-bridge-trophy.de/


Edit: Linkadress
Feb. 17
Lars Allard edited this comment Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Follow this link to the Spanish Bridgefederation http://www.aebridge.com/home.asp or this link http://www.bridge.cat/ and you will find the program for the tourney with all information.
Feb. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am just trying to understand why this should be Re-(to play - suggesting a contract).

2 (strong, involving a lot of hand types) - 2 (assuming waiting or no system bid)
3 (Probably natural game forcing?) - 3 (natural but could not bid in first round because of weak spades?)
3NT Ok, we try 3NT if you don't have more to add to the bidding) - 4 (hey, i also have diamond support)
4NT (fine, but that was not what i was looking for unless you have extra's)

It look's strange to me that the strong hand need to cue after 4 in order to maybe, if lucky, be able ask for aces. After all partner did not bid 5 that probably would show a weaker hand? Some pairs maybe have an agreement for this situation where 4NT is Re-(to play - suggesting a contract) that they show number of aces IF they accept?

Anyway, i think it look strange that after you got what you probably was looking for ( support) suggest playing no trump. After all, should not 4 instead of 5 promise at least 1 control?
Sept. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suggest to use 2NT response as a non-forcing 16-18 with max 3-2 in majors. 3♣ is used for the strong responder hands with fit in one or both major.
Dec. 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Funbridge.
July 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 3 is not always 5-card, have you done justice to the hand? After all, Kaplan and Rubens hand evaluator say this hand is worth 23HP. Of course, the value of a hand will change if it is a fit or not.

What is the worst that can happend if we bid one more time? I guess 4NT or 5 (wich we will pass).
March 5, 2016
Lars Allard edited this comment March 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tx for voting and good comments. Highly appreciated!
Dec. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
About ethics, this small comment has nothing to do with the initial question from Mr. Verhees, but worth mention anyway i think.

A couple of years ago in the norwegian premier league i played a 3NT against two of the very best norwegian players. I have to admit that i do not remember the board completely.

I won the lead in hand and it was not neccessary to be a rocketscientist to see that miracles must be happening for this contract to go home. I cached 3-4 tricks in one colour and then played a card that the opponenet on my side of the screen won. This player then went into a long tank and when he finaly got out of the tank he did not play a card, he called the TD!

Probably i looked very confused at that time but when the TD arrived the opponenet on my side of the screen explained that he had a UI problem. He knew what card to play, but his problem was that his partner had kind of showed a specific card in trick one by using a few nanoseconds to much before playing. So he just decided to ask the TD what to do! After some discussion between the TD and the opponent on my side i just said “play whatever card you like, i think i am going down anyway”. And so i did :)

After the round was finished i thought a lot about this board and who was to blame for the situation. It did not take me long to realise that it was my mistake.

I played on to the first trick from dummy way to fast. What i should have done, and what i think every declearer should do, no matter how easy the bord looks, take 15 seconds before you play from dummy in trick one.

Anyone care to guess who the player that did call the TD about his UI problem was?
Oct. 19, 2015
Lars Allard edited this comment Oct. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A lot of things could be said about Sorin Lupan, however, i find it very difficult to find something positive to say about him.
Sept. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tx Ned!

That was not my intention at all. I guess what i tried to say was that Helgeness in most cases reach the same top contracts as the pairs that have a very scientific approach to their bidding. I have of course full respect of Meckwell, Fantunes etc. etc.

I am realy sorry that my choice of words came out wrong :)
July 22, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No matter what we think about who is the best pair, today all the four pairs mentioned in this thread will play the final in Springold.

Meckwell, Levin - Weinstein, Fantunes and Helgeness. I realy look forward to spend some hours in front of my laptop to follow this battle :)
July 22, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, that's your problem. I have full respect of Meckwell, no matter what you read between the lines.
July 22, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chris and Greg, it is not my opinion that Meckwell are “fake cardplayers”. Can't realy see where i wrote that in my comments…
July 22, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yea, Mecwell has a different approach to their bidding. Helgeness are trusting more of their “nose”, and have a very natural bidding style.

No offence, but i put Helgeness on top because they are real cardplayers. IMO they read the cards very good without the scientefic approach.
July 21, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But they was impressing in the Euorpan Championship. When Fantoni - Nunes had a - butler the second phase, Helgeness keep moving on against very good opponents and had a very good butler.
July 21, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree on that, Levin - Weinsten is also very good!
July 21, 2012
.

Bottom Home Top