Join Bridge Winners

Bridge Winners Profile for Paul Huggins

Paul Huggins
Paul Huggins
  • 0
  • 8
  • 2
  • 0

Basic Information

Member Since
Aug. 23, 2014
Last Seen
45 minutes ago
Member Type
bridge player

Bridge Information

ACBL Ranking
Sorry, this user has no cards yet.
Rafael Sacramento's bidding problem: KQ432 QT9 T52 Q5
I think it's still useful for advancer to have an idea of the degree of fit opposite, giving them the option to pass after the transfer is completed if they decide that is actually going to be our side's best spot
Rafael Sacramento's bidding problem: KQ432 QT9 T52 Q5
if advancer could have only 5 cards in their suit, then logically we shouldn't be completing the transfer without tolerance for their suit ie 2-3 card support. hands with 4+ support and/or 3 card support and extra playing strength can super accept, and hands without tolerance (0-1 card ...
Carl Mathiesen's bidding problem: Q8 AT64 KT63 T75
my only concern is partner interpreting our 4 as a place to play with long hearts and not enough values to bid a forcing 2 on the previous round (if such hands would have started with a negative x)
Ed Judy's bidding problem: 753 A AKQ975 654
did our 3 say anything about diamonds? If not then how could we show a forcing hand with diamonds at that point?
Nuno Miguel Marques Sousa's bidding problem: --- KQT42 2 J987543
what did North's x mean? As they pre empted it doesn't sound like a pure penalty x. would pass have been forcing given that South bid a vulnerable game?
Awkward responding hand
South has an invitational hand with diamonds. How in the partnership's agreements do they show such a hand after a 1 opening? If via the given sequence of 2 followed by 3 then North should have bid 3NT - although I can see why they wanted to ...
North was being cautious in case South had a 3=3=2=5 type hand - even if 4 wasn't technically considered game forcing in this partnership South should have raised to game realising how much better their hand might be - prime diamond support and a ruffing value in ...
Overcalling a (natural) 1!c opener when holding a real !c suit of your own
exactly - it's a meta-rule we can use if we don't get the chance to discuss more fully "Michaels on/off then?" at the start of a round when exchanging system overviews with the opponents
Jeff Ruben's bidding problem: 95 AK975 532 K43
has partner promised an unbalanced hand with at least 5-4?
Overcalling a (natural) 1!c opener when holding a real !c suit of your own
I try to agree a meta-rule with partner before starting a session - my usual meta-rule is if 1 shows 2+ clubs, then (1)-2=whatever 2 suiter we have agreed here if 1 shows 0-1 clubs, then (1)-2 is natural some might prefer ...
Not following anyone yet

Bottom Home Top