Join Bridge Winners

Bridge Winners Profile for Anthony Pettengell

Anthony Pettengell
Anthony Pettengell
  • 17
    Following
  • 4
    Followers
  • 45
    Posts
  • 0
    Favorites

Basic Information

Member Since
April 30, 2016
Last Seen
5 minutes ago
Member Type
Bridge Player
about me

I began playing bridge while at uni in Durham, UK, unfortunately not starting until near the end of my undergraduate degree. I spent 3 years in Nottingham, mainly playing at the Nottingham, Woodborough and Phoenix bridge clubs, and helping to (re)start the university club there. I moved to Middlesbrough in September 2017 and am now playing in Darlington at the St George's Bridge Centre.

 

I have played Acol, 2/1, Precision, and Polish Club, and I am keen to try new systems. I mainly fall down in defence (don't we all?) or just in making silly errors. We can but try to improve!

Country
United Kingdom

Bridge Information

Member of Bridge Club(s)
Hurworth (St George's Bridge Centre)
BBO Username
Antonyx
ACBL Ranking
None
Sorry, this user has no cards yet.
Martin Lindfors's bidding problem: JT97532 3 85 A94
Exactly this. I tend towards 2 at matchpoints, but I could be persuaded otherwise. Unequivocally 4 at teams.
Jim Olson's bidding problem: K943 KQ85 Q AQT2
Exactly this. Systemically this is a 1NT opener in my current Polish Club (with the singleton diamond), and there is similarly some argument for 1NT playing a strong club. Playing a natural approach forcing system I’ll stick to 1 however.
A Dutch Disaster - plan the play
3 is pass or correct, 3N is a forcing enquiry that asks about both suit and strength. My partner clearly bid 2N as a tactical try at finishing in 3, or 3/4 if you get lucky and have minor fit. I couldn’t say whether this ...
Martin Lindfors's bidding problem: K752 T KQT3 AJT4
I presume this is a companion problem to your previous poll. The two hands fit well because of complementary minor honours/lack of heart wastage, but looking at the hands in isolation I do not think they should be bidding or indeed inviting game at MPs. 2 is fine ...
Balancing after 1S-P-2S-P-P
Surely 2N as clubs + longer diamonds is more efficient? 3 skipping 3 doesn't feel great.
Anthony Pettengell's bidding problem: KQT54 32 T AJ875
I really don't like that style. I appreciate that Odvrodka (or whatever variant used) COULD be bid on any hand that is 18+ with 3+ trumps, but the auction can be unweildy when only 3 trumps and responder has 4 if opener is unbalanced. We only bid Odvrodka with ...
Anthony Pettengell's bidding problem: KQT54 32 T AJ875
I discussed the point about 3 with partner, as my gut reaction was 3 denied 3 spades, but we agreed that it didn't necessarily - a hand with a good 6+-card heart suit and 3 can bid 3 here not 3, so 3 ...
Anthony Pettengell's bidding problem: KQT54 32 T AJ875
We don't currently have this agreement, but perhaps we should. I think I prefer 3 showing 5 clubs but not necessarily canapé, could also be 5-5, with 5=X=Y=4 clubs hands rebidding 2 then mentioning clubs later if relevant.
(1H) P (1S) P (2H) X = ?
The balancing seat is definitely different for obvious reasons. The question for me is "is there a hand that would want to double for takeout now, that wouldn't have doubled for takeout earlier?" That depends both on the strength/variance of your initial take-out doubles and the particular auction.
(1H) P (1S) P (2H) X = ?
While you have 2N/2 for takeout to the minors, I still have x as take-out here. It's nice to have an 'optional' takeout that partner can pass, but the main reason is simplicity/system consistency.
.

Bottom Home Top