Join Bridge Winners

Bridge Winners Profile for Anthony Pettengell

Anthony Pettengell
Anthony Pettengell
  • 25
  • 5
  • 102
  • 0

Basic Information

Member Since
April 30, 2016
Last Seen
18 hours ago
Member Type
Bridge Player
about me

I began playing bridge while at uni in Durham, UK, unfortunately not starting until near the end of my undergraduate degree. I spent 3 years in Nottingham, mainly playing at the Nottingham, Woodborough and Phoenix bridge clubs, and helping to (re)start the university club there. I moved to Middlesbrough in September 2017 and am now playing in Darlington at the St George's Bridge Centre.


I have played Acol, 2/1, Precision, and Polish Club, and I am keen to try new systems. I mainly fall down in defence (don't we all?) or just in making silly errors. We can but try to improve!

United Kingdom

Bridge Information

Member of Bridge Club(s)
Hurworth (St George's Bridge Centre)
BBO Username
ACBL Ranking
Sorry, this user has no cards yet.
Martin Lindfors's bidding problem: T86 JT9653 AQ2 9
Well, you can still agree to have 2 be an invite in hearts, without those switches, albeit without nuance in follow-ups - opener jumps to 4/3N with a max and rebids 3 with a min. 2 then cannot be a hand that simply wants to play ...
John Portwood's bidding problem: A4 AQ98 T6 AJT63
I agree with both Richard and Mark. My typical agreements after an initial penalty double of 1N are that double is penalties/pass is forcing vs 2m, but pass is NF and double is takeout vs 2M. Subsequent doubles would be penalties either way. I would much prefer immediate doubles ...
Overcalling 1NT When Holding a Good 5 Card Major
To be fair the question is posed as 'good' 5-card major; while this is a subjective descriptor, I'm quite sure 65432 wouldn't qualify!
Bill March's bidding problem: AKQT9xx QTx Qx K
Exactly that. I can fully understand the view that you want to bid 4 anyway, but the soft honours (singleton K, Qx and QTx) are very defensive and argue against preemption. Given those soft values, I think it unlikely you'll be passed out in 1 with a ...
Bill March's bidding problem: AKQT9xx QTx Qx K
I'm always tempted with a strong 7-card major and a passed-hand partner to be pre-empting, with 3/4 (4 at this vulnerability), but those H/D/C honours really suggest not doing so. 1 seems pretty clear to me here.
Anthony Pettengell's bidding problem: Q865 K8 Q87 T854
Well that's part of the 'usual latitude' comment, haha! This partner isn't known for bidding here overly often with 4 though (I haven't yet seen him do it), so expect that only with a chunky suit. Overall hand strength however...
Anthony Pettengell's bidding problem: KQJ52 95 84 9542
This is roughly what I expected in terms of votes. I bid 4 at the table, which was -2, a terrible score at MP. Trying not to 'result' the hand, despite the 5-card suit I think 3 is sufficient with this tepid shape - particularly given the vulnerability and ...
Anthony Pettengell's bidding problem: KQ983 T97 KT JT3
Thank you all. Partner was E and doubled here. I agree with everyone that I would have showed hearts earlier in the auction, but at the very least I had to do a sanity check on this round, as I couldn't comprehend double.
Ian Grant's bidding problem: --- T97543 J985 KJ2
This was an interesting hand, and no-one I spoke to had the same auction. I opened 2 with the North hand - not everyone's taste, but NV with a spade void means act straight away. Give me a proper suit and the same distribution and I'd open 3 ...
Splinter or Fit Bid after Takeout Double
For simplicity I don't normally differentiate the jumps between a suit overcall and doubles. For most of my partnerships all of those double jumps are splinters, with the jumps below being fit jumps. But if you do want to differentiate, then splinters are most useful in overcaller's suit ...

Bottom Home Top