Join Bridge Winners

Bridge Winners Profile for Tom Edwards

Tom Edwards
Tom Edwards
  • 6
    Following
  • 2
    Followers
  • 78
    Posts
  • 5
    Favorites

Basic Information

Member Since
March 20, 2011
Last Seen
a minute ago
Member Type
Bridge Player
about me

 

 

Country
United States of America

Bridge Information

BBO Username
Magnum45
ACBL Ranking
Diamond Life Master
Sorry, this user has no cards yet.
Tom Edwards's bidding problem: KJ62 KT765 --- AKQT
Opening 1NT=14-16
UDCA and Smith
David, you may well be describing the way Smith was originally suggested by I.G. Smith. I don't know. It seems to me to have some of the elements of what I know of as Modified Smith. In his 1995 book, “Defensive Signals,” Marshall Miles suggested an improvement to ...
UDCA and Smith
They play Reverse Smith.
Too weak to reverse but holding 6m-5M, which suit do you open with?
A great player once told me that any 5-6 hand that's an opening bid is good enough to reverse. Maybe an over simplification.
Leo Lasota's bidding problem: QT85 K96 T8 A963
I think the options presented are those for an uncontested auction. How would partner bid with, say, 16 hcp and a singleton spade?
Tom Edwards's bidding problem: AQ7642 --- 732 KJ53
I'd be happy to hear more about the objection to 3. We were playing Ingberman/reverse, where the first priority for responder's rebid (without this interference) is to disclose a 5+ card spade suit. The alternative, a GF 4 would be reasonable, of course.
Third-suit bids
I'm new to reverse Flannery, but I don't see why 1 should be artificial and GF. Last month, there was an interesting related discussion: https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/is-this-forcing-2-uyqfdvave4/?cj=844619#c844619
Is this forcing?
There is a strange bidding agreement that is played by many of the good players in my area. After an opening bid in a minor. a major suit response, and a rebid of 2 of the minor, the only forcing bid is a bid in the other minor. That is ...
Peg Kaplan's bidding problem: A6 AKT6 AKT4 974
Is it fair to double and announce "Penalty" even if you think it should be otherwise? :)
Timuçin (Timo) Erkoç's bidding problem: 865432 4 J KQ864
Yes, 4 could work well, and at another vulnerability I'd bid that. At this vulnerability, it's a virtual certainty that the opponents will bid again.
.

Bottom Home Top