Join Bridge Winners

Bridge Winners Profile for Richard Fleet

Richard Fleet
Richard Fleet
  • 0
  • 76
  • 203
  • 0

Basic Information

Member Since
May 8, 2016
Last Seen
42 minutes ago
Member Type
Bridge Player
about me

I am retired both from full-time work and from tournament bridge.  My main bridge interest is researching the history of the tournament game in England: the first (and possibly only) instalment, covering the period up to the end of WW2, was published on the EBU website in December 2016.

My first serious bridge partner was Richard Granville and he suggested that I sign up to this site.

United Kingdom

Bridge Information

Favorite Bridge Memory
Winning the South-West Lancashire knock-out teams event as a very raw schoolboy in 1971 - our opponents in the final were far stronger and more experienced players, including two who went on to win the English National Pairs.
Bridge Accomplishments
I've won a few national events and represented England on several occasions. My main accomplishment might well be either winning the main team event at the EBU summer meeting in partnership with my (now ex) wife or surviving an unbeaten partnership of 160 boards with Tony Forrester.
Regular Bridge Partners
None at present.
Member of Bridge Club(s)
None at present.
Favorite Tournaments
The Lederer Memorial, with which I was involved as organiser, player or commentator for about 30 years.
Favorite Conventions
The Kokish 2H rebid after 2C-2D. I would rather prefer to play without any conventions but some are essential and this is one. I would classify the Kempson 2C or 2D response to 1NT in the same category.
BBO Username
Not a member
ACBL Ranking
Sorry, this user has no cards yet.
Forcing or Not Forcing
There's a big difference, Mike, between pre-empting before anyone has bid and pre-empting after partner has opened the bidding.
Peg Kaplan's bidding problem: Qx AJTx KJxx Kxx
I'm not convinced that hearts are agreed - how would partner make a slam try with diamonds agreed? If hearts are agreed, I expect him to have spade control: with the hand postulated by Paul, he would bid 4, not 4.
Rafael Sacramento's bidding problem: J3 QT964 QJ82 J2
I can see two logical possibilities: I am happy for you to compete further in hearts; or I want to punish them. Sadly, these are mutually exclusive. I think that the former is the more likely so bid 4.
Alan Schwartz's lead problem: Q97 J4 JT84 JT84
I lead a minor suit Jack.
Marko Seizovic's lead problem: QT32 87654 J64 T
I think that a spade represents the best chance of taking exactly four tricks. This is IMP so I'm leading a heart - AKxx and the suit splitting 2-2 will do nicely.
Tomislav šAšEk's bidding problem: 73 JT984 KJT2 65
I don't get this "follow the law" argument. I look at my hand and see a complete minimum in high cards. Then I look at the vulnerability and see that it is adverse. Bidding 3 is asking to concede 200.
Forcing or Not Forcing
You may well be right. Strong jump shifts are part of Acol, however.
Donald Lurie's bidding problem: --- A76 AKQ632 AK43
That's where I disagree. Former team-mates of mine had great success with passing reopening doubles whenever they had five trumps.
USBC Final Results For Open and Women
I don't think that's quite right. Per the Official Encyclopaedia of Bridge, EK placed first or second in at least five Vanderbilts playing on teams of more than four.
Forcing or Not Forcing
I lack the familiarity with the partnership methods to be able to vote meaningfully. In Acol, definitely non-forcing unless agreed to the contrary.
Not following anyone yet

Bottom Home Top