Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Askgaard
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because 2 doesn't show anything about hearts, it is fourth suit forcing. 2 then spades shows a strong raise but still not anything about hearts.
Jan. 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play 4NT keycard and 5 as an art slam try in diamonds. In my system I would bid 5.
Dec. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
N's bidding is not logical to me. 3 is NF. So when partner muster up 3NT, 4 does not mean that he is now too strong to pass, but that his hand is not notrumpish, ie shape, bad suit etc.
Oct. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Finesse.
If we finess into stiff K we are dead, but Kxx onside is 3 times as likely. So if we play A first and find Kxx onside, we cant afford to go down more than 1/3 each time or we are better off finessing. Spades not 3-3 is almost 2/3. There are no squeeze chances and they are very unlikely to go wrong with discards. So I need them to not find K+ almost half the time when I play the second off dummy. I wont gamble on that.
Oct. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
6C. I think 5N is choice of slams with spades also. X of a preempt should not be completely onesuited, so pass is out. It is 6C or 6D. I try 6C, because with five clubs I would likely have bid 4N, not 5D.
Sept. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seeding an event like this (that is very different from the Rosenblum) should be based on country merits only, not players' MP or the like. The good reasons for this have already been posted.

It might be difficult to devise a good seeding point system for countries since some zones have zonal championships and others do not. If it can be done - great, if not I think we can live without.

I don't have a problem with a committee deciding the seeding layers based on previous results, but there should be a clear specification of what world and zonal events that count towards this seeding and with what weight. And the committee should not look at the line-ups of the teams.

A broadcasted draw to find the groups from there sounds great.
Aug. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was a bit disappointed reading the BridgeWinners MPs analysis above, not even a (*) about tainted MPs of team Monaco (and maybe other teams as well, I don't know but the possible teams with tainted MPs are all in Group A&B).

I thought it was BW opinion that MPs won with cheating team mates should be disregarded. Or is everything already forgotten.
Aug. 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What if the actual players don't know that “only” 40% af BW members would double on this hand? Should we place the onus on the bidders to disclose a diverging style they might not know is diverging? If they knew to hit the middle of the fairway on every hand they might have been playing in higher circles instead.
Aug. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Personally I find it more useful, when opponents DONT alert small subtle things about a natural call. It makes it a lot easier to follow a basically natural auction. I can ask about the meaning of the bids when appropriate, that is not a problem. They should then, of course, be quick to volunteer any unusual inference, they might have.
July 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
NO! Best line for Max at mp is running the 9, playing for the drop if it loses to J. This beats low to Q on 4 combinations (Jxx, KJx, KJx, KJxx) while losing to 3 (Kx, Kx, Kxx).

There may be other clues, obv.
July 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rub of the green. No basis for adjustment, not really a hard decision.
June 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think forcing is unplayable.
We want to get our 2-suiters in with good hands but without promising the world. Sometimes we just buy badly and it must be with the odds to pass weak misfitting hands as responder instead of having to raise to a typically silly 5m, likely doubled.
June 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve just has to suffer here, like we all do from time to time in UI situations.

He could have avoided the 4N bid, if it risked a slow 5D. His partner could on his side have made a quicker decision over 4N. Both of these “solutions” come with obvious drawbacks (loss of bidding precision), but one must choose his weapon.

As it went, bidding slam was illegal.

I don't think it is a good idea that seasoned screen-players try to gain an advantage for themselves by writing notes or waiving bidding cards to suggest “I would always bid…”. This helping tool is not approved within the rules.

In my opinion, either the rules say we use notes or we don't. I prefer (all in all) that we don't.
May 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Reminds me of a deal in a high level tournament.
They bid: 1-2,3-3,6NT
I had some 4333 type with an AK-combination. When to double? Always?
April 27, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well said.
If I am unsure if XY after 1x-1y-1N is part of ESTOP, I should alert 2m and say just that (if asked).
If I have agreed Lebensohl but not if it applies in some situation (but it might), I should alert 2N. Etc.
April 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4NT risked 5 and was therefore pointless since grand is out after 4. If N wanted to be so (over)aggressive, a leap to 6 might confuse the issue to W (N has a void? In , where else?).
But I would just bid 4.
March 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would play it more aggressively based on H 3-2. H to j, hope it loses. If not hA, maybe the Q comes down. If not then I hope I can ruff a diamond and run 3 club tricks, east having the last heart. If they f*** me in hearts by ducking the Q offside, wd them.
Jan. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If partner could have T9 tight, I would hate to have thrown the queen. Declarer might well play to the A next due to restricted choice and the danger hand behind.
T from T9 AND JTx doesn't sound clever to me.
Jan. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I knew that the Tx falsecard was overrated …

For me (being an UDCA'er) playing T from JT tight and J from JTx here would be the normal thing.
Jan. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with A. West is very likely 4612, so I want to see how big a diamond he drops before I commit to spade or club.
Jan. 4, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top