Join Bridge Winners

Bridge Winners Profile for Peter Fordham

Peter Fordham
Peter Fordham
  • 0
  • 6
  • 10
  • 0

Basic Information

Member Since
Sept. 23, 2015
Last Seen
18 hours ago
Member Type
Bridge Player

Bridge Information

Favorite Bridge Memory
Playing in final of NZ open teams C'ship 2000, screen mate for 64 boards, RHO, Geir Helgemo, on defence, I knew I had to switch to card from K10x with AJx in dummy to have chance to defeat contract. I selected K which proved to be good enough. Geir, graciously, privately said, "Well defended Peter. If you examine the possible spot layouts closely, you'll see that the 10 is slightly better." Geir, champion, gentleman, scholar.
Bridge Accomplishments
Int'l: Played one Bermuda Bowl[2001], two Far East/Asia Pacific C'ships [1985, 2001], several Zone 7 C'ships [winning 2001]. Nat'nl: Won most open teams c'ships in Australasia including both Aust. and NZ Open Teams and Aust. Seniors teams.. Represented Qld, ACT and NSW at Aust Nat'nl C'ships[Open]. ACBL: Won Montreal Regional KO teams 1986?
Regular Bridge Partners
Not currently playing regularly
Member of Bridge Club(s)
Bridge Today
Favorite Tournaments
Australian Summer Festival of Bridge [includes National Open Teams and National Seniors Teams]
Favorite Conventions
The only good conventions are those that partner and I both understand thoroughly and use wisely.
ACBL Ranking
Sorry, this user has no cards yet.
Kyle Rockoff's bidding problem: A7 QJT43 853 853
It is true that we might have zero points, but it is not true that our expectancy is zero. I estimate that expectancy is about six or seven points. That is what we have. Plenty of hands partner might have are adequate for three and no more. Any opponent's ...
I agree that relays (provided oppo keep out of the way) will make this straightforward. It's more than twenty years since I played Strong Club with Symmetric Relays so I hesitate to assert clearly here, but with North in charge, South's exact shape emerges at or about 3 ...
If 2 raised directly, that would, in essence, mean either NT or as final strain. Quite difficult to sort out alternative trump suit. Three level sorts out sensibility of 3NT. (Easier when responder bids major directly as immediate raise generates old fashioned gamma asks.) That is why North ...
It is certainly reasonable for South to bid 4 over 3. As it happens, South observed that in a curious sort of way, by bidding 3 rather than either 3NT or jumping to 4, North had left contracts other than merely in view. Thus, the ...
I take your point about the disparity in suit quality in South's hand. Both player's in the partnership are ancients (not quite) who generally believe in 'length before strength'. Still I agree that 1 leads to a more comfortable auction, provided it is accepted that the 6th ...
Jonathan Steinberg's bidding problem: KJxxx Axxxx x AT
And they all X when faced with this new problem.
Jonathan Steinberg's bidding problem: KJxxx Axxxx x AT
Last time I played in the Ottawa regional, which was some 32 years back, the whole field opened 1S on this hand.
Michal Czerwonko's bidding problem: QJ8x 97xx KJ AQ6
I assume the 3NT bidders believe partner has denied spades.
Michal Czerwonko's bidding problem: QJ8x 97xx KJ AQ6
Whatever my game forcing checkback bid is. In my world, partner hasn't denied 4 Spades yet.
Michal Czerwonko's bidding problem: KQ4 A96 KQJ5 AK8
2, Isn't this what I have? why muddy things with something clever or peremptory. Partner's next bid should clarify matters somewhat. Thereafter, we can settle on strain and level.
Not following anyone yet

Bottom Home Top