Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Franck Guerrero
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Forget it, everything's back now. Thanks for the feedback though.
June 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Donald wrote:“Personally, I don't want to replicate the way of life that France and Netherlands have - and which may be the most significant factors in their ”penetration“ stats. ”

Good news, please stay where you are and make america great gain…
May 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
neither ;)
April 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
maybe you should have had a look below the word country in the profile, an hint may be hidden there
April 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
here, the only bridge played without screens is at club level. Any competitive event is played behind screens…
April 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Screens
April 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One reason could simply be a psych or a silly choice ;)

Ex: bidding a GF Stayman over 1NT with:
J542
J432
98765
-

or passing 1 1 2 with

J8754
982
2
J632

both bids are just out of agreement, but technically partner is as amazed as the opps when the forcing bid is passed out…
April 5, 2018
Franck Guerrero edited this comment April 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does that really mean that each time the partnership makes a forcing bid, we should alert it and explain it as “forcing but can be passed” because the p may take a view and pass the forcing bid ?

Some real examples :

1NT pass 2*(GF Stayman) pass 2anything pass
1 pass 1 pass 2 pass
2* (multi) pass pass
1x pass pass X XX*(SOS) pass pass
and so on…
April 5, 2018
Franck Guerrero edited this comment April 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“100,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong…”

Yes, we can
Jan. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
so, partner would sign-off with say Jxxx AQxxx Ax Qx and would encourage with Qxxx AQxxx Ax xx ?

our partnership level of discussion is not yet as precise ;)
Jan. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I think that 4♣ would have been preferable over 3♠.”

I don't understand what would be the benefit of 4 when the needed information is now the number of keycards and Q.
Jan. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
yes 3 sets trump
Jan. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If classic french standard, 1 1 3NT would show a balanced hand, 18-19 with a fit.
Oct. 2, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
FWIW, this is what i play:

no 1st or second round control in
no A or K or
first or second round control in

a really mediocre opening would have bid 3NT over 3.
Aug. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Why were the french team in closed room allowed to wear smart watches?”

in order to be able to receive the boards diagrams before playing them of course
Aug. 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
crossruff now ?
1 club, 2 master trumps, 2s, 2s and 5 ruffs, i may have overlooked something…
July 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Godefroy, yes it was imp (IC Ligue).

By the way, the posted problem was just theoretical as West didn't call indeed the director. It was a friendly match and the N/S pair is more known for its lack of competence than for its lack of ethics :-) EW are 1N, NS 1M.

West just informed us post-mortem that the pass over 6 was doubtful and that could be corrected. They did'nt really need a call to the director to crush us :-).
July 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Moving over 6♦ doesn't seem all that logical, mostly for the reason first stated by Kieran. I do know players that would insist on 6♥ or even 6NT.”

Indeed, see http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-3xmfscq868/
July 3, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John,
“Also, I would like to know whether this was teams or pairs”
Teams, 20-scale victory.

for the record, lost 2 for 6 making in the other room (don't ask…)
July 3, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top