Join Bridge Winners

Bridge Winners Profile for Marshall Lewis

Marshall Lewis
Marshall Lewis
  • 50
  • 41
  • 4
  • 0

Basic Information

Member Since
Aug. 16, 2011
Last Seen
Feb. 20
Member Type
Bridge Writer
about me

If at times my comments seem annoying or offensive, at least consider the possibility that I am really just being playful. 


Bridge Information

Favorite Bridge Memory
six of diamonds was good
Bridge Accomplishments
most of my partners still walk the earth. as for the exceptions, I have an ironclad alibi
Regular Bridge Partners
i wouldn't know about those details, shame on BW for inquiring
Favorite Tournaments
Pula International Bridge Festival
Favorite Conventions
Takeout Double, Drury, 2-way checkback, druGFree; MOST DISDAINED: Muiderberg, Bergen, Gambling 3N
ACBL Ranking
Sorry, this user has no cards yet.
Tomislav šAšEk's lead problem: KQxx Jxx Q9x Kxx
(a) The first question is not whether 1H was natural, but rather what if anything it showed regarding Opener's distribution, especially with respect to clubs. (b) I doubt whether there would be broad consensus that the mainstream default interpretation of 3N in reaction to the splinter is "offer to ...
Tomislav šAšEk's lead problem: KQxx Jxx Q9x Kxx
Really? What did 1H show, i.e. about the rest of opener's hand? What did 3N mean, over the Splinter? Hard to answer without knowing the answers to these questions.
Danny Sprung's bidding problem: K84 AQT6 K7 AK85
A lot depends on our agreements, and a whole lot on who partner is -- and plenty on who we are too. Maybe we have these agreements, or this is how CHO would be eligible to think: (a) 3S already showed a 3-card fit. (b) We wouldn't ever cue over ...
Peter Hasenson's bidding problem: J852 97 5 AQJ973
(a) If bidding 2C fits the description "unilateral", then so does every single call we ever make. (b) Also, every single call a player ever makes is chosen because the player believes it to be advantageous -- assuming he/she is rational, anyway.
Peter Hasenson's bidding problem: J852 97 5 AQJ973
Honestly, I don't see how it is even possible to disagree with the statement that slam possibilities our way are transparent (even if slam is not actually probable), whereas slam possibilities their way are speculative. For one thing we can see 50% of our side's assets and we ...
Peter Hasenson's bidding problem: J852 97 5 AQJ973
Is there a single vote (other than Abstain) or a single comment made in a single poll on BW that is NOT "opinionated"? In fact, doesn't that kind of go with the territory when people are being asked for their …. wait, what are they called? Oh yes … opinions?
Peter Hasenson's bidding problem: J852 97 5 AQJ973
The possibility of slam our way is manifest, we can see it. The possibility of slam their way is merely speculative -- in fact extremely so, given than partner has opened AND we have an ace (not to mention other things).
What does this 3!d bid mean?
Very sorry to have misinterpreted, but what I understood to be "the circumstances outlined by RF" are as follows: "South deals and opens 2♦ (weak two-bid) and West overcalls 3♦. East-West have agreed to play Leaping Michaels."
What does this 3!d bid mean?
Asking them "how they would play the bid" is of course not the same as asking them the question posed by Richard. I believe the default interpretation of the question as so worded is: "What treatment do you prefer for a 3D overcall in this sequence?", which is clearly a ...
Fast Spingold
I agree -- for me it is a "novelty event", motivated primarily by participants' desire to finish early, and only secondarily by the abhorrence of slow play.

Bottom Home Top