Join Bridge Winners

Bridge Winners Profile for Martin Henneberger

Martin Henneberger
Martin Henneberger
  • 14
  • 16
  • 15
  • 0

Basic Information

Member Since
March 21, 2013
Last Seen
5 hours ago
Member Type
Bridge Player
about me

Bridge player, golfer, traveler. Member of multiple fantasy sports leagues. 


Bridge Information

ACBL Ranking
Diamond Life Master
Sorry, this user has no cards yet.
Ethical or not?
Huh? Eric, are you for real?
Director question
Ruling that declarer play the K after East shows out, goes way beyond careless or inferior. Duplicate Decisions tells us that there can be recourse from poorly stated claims. Had declarer said, "playing for the drop" or "spades from the top", I hope we wouldn't be having this discussion ...
Director question
I'm saying that the claim was merely poorly stated. I am proposing that declarer has stated: "playing for the drop", albeit in a different way. Once the opponent shows out, I would not consider holding them to a poorly worded claim.
Director question
This is a quote from Duplicate Decisions: "The director’s most difficult task, in dealing with claims, is to distinguish between a poor claim and a poorly stated claim. In the first instance, the player has erred, the claim is likely to be faulty. In the second instance, the player ...
You be the judge!
Edited out.
You be the judge!
Follow-ups when opponents bids a major over a stayman bid
Almost everything. You would be playing penalty by both sides. In so doing, you will often miss game in your 4-4 fit to defend a 2 level contract because one of you holds 4 of the opponents major. Imagine opener with 4-4-3-2 shape doubling for penalty opposite responder's 4-1-5-3 ...
Follow-ups when opponents bids a major over a stayman bid
@ Louis I am suggesting that opener doubles with 4-4-3-2 to show spades so they don't have to decide what to do. If responder has the 3-2-4-4 hand and opener has denied spades by passing, then they can reopen to protect a penalty pass. Should our side not be able ...
Follow-ups when opponents bids a major over a stayman bid
I have rarely missed out on a profitable penalty by passing. Partner will protect with any inv + hand. I have missed out on plenty of penalties by bidding 2 in front of partner. They often only have 1 major when bidding Stayman and inevitably it's not the major ...
What do you make of this?
Forgive me Richard, but when someone states "No details available: why should anyone even have "runout methods" in this situation?", I feel the need to speak up. I truly believe you've had a blind spot here. Perhaps I should have sugar-coated my response.

Bottom Home Top