Join Bridge Winners

Bridge Winners Profile for Craig Zastera

Craig Zastera
Craig Zastera
  • 0
  • 16
  • 101
  • 0

Basic Information

Member Since
June 28, 2012
Last Seen
an hour ago
Member Type
Bridge Player
United States of America

Bridge Information

ACBL Ranking
Diamond Life Master
Sorry, this user has no cards yet.
Kevin O'Dea's bidding problem: A643 AJT65 7 AK2
I want to make a splinter in support of partner's s showing short s, GF values, possible slam interest. In my methods, we play "XYZ", and splinters in support of opener's suits are made by going through the 2 ==> 2 relay. Thus: 1-1-1-2 ...
Sarik Goyal's bidding problem: 765 --- QJT9876 T63
For me (and many others, I think), 3 here would not be "pre-emptive", but rather a game invitational fit-jump (hence not appropriate with this hand). But if I played "weak jump shifts" (I don't), then I would surely make one here (3). I would not be worried ...
Do you adjust?
It seems to me that South's alternative to his balancing 5 (and the one I would have chosen) is DOUBLE. This would have led to 5N making 5 for a better N/S score. I cannot imagine passing out (4) with this South hand, particularly at ...
What Does This Double Mean?
Since partner's 1 overcall could be based on as few as 8 HCPs (some would go even lower), and all we have done is raise to 2--clearly showing fewer than 10 HCPs and probably only 3 s, it is hard to see how we can have any ...
Jeff Bayone's bidding problem: T64 5 KJT97654 A
I was unaware that Namyats was originally played backwards. Clearly better to use 4/4 to show the better hands because: (a) gives an extra step (4m + 1) which can be used profitably when responder has a good hand with slam interest (b) Opening 4M with the weaker ...
Max Schireson's bidding problem: AQxx AQxxx xx xx
Might be relevent to know if advancer's 2NT would be Lebensohl if we choose to double. Personally, I do not play Lebensohl over doubles of their 2 openings (but do over 2 and 2).
David Caprera's bidding problem: 5 AQ86 8542 AK75
Doesn't that depend on whether 2 (or 2 for that matter) is forcing? If it is not forcing (or even invitational) as I believe most play (BWS), then I don't see why 2 (NF) is particularly better than, say, 1NT.
David Caprera's bidding problem: 5 AQ86 8542 AK75
Obviously depends on methods. Assuming that new suit advances are not forcing and that cue-bid (2) does not promise a fit, this hand seems strong enough to start with 2 (forcing, fit not promised). I was shocked at all the votes for 1NT. This hand with 13 HCPs ...
Jeff Bayone's bidding problem: T64 5 KJT97654 A
This would be a 3NT opening in my methods to show a 4 level pre-empt in an unspecified minor. That convention goes along with playing 4 and 4 openings as Namyats (good 4 and 4 pre-empts, respectively). But since OP did not specify methods, I voted ...
Suit combination: QJ8x opposite A7xxx
But the "A" option (they are not labled, but I would assume the first one listed is "A") is the one where the A(ce) is cashed first. My point is that this is *NOT* the way one would play the suit at matchpoints with no special circumstances.
Not following anyone yet

Bottom Home Top