Join Bridge Winners

Bridge Winners Profile for Martin Lindfors

Martin Lindfors
Martin Lindfors
  • 6
  • 0
  • 1
  • 0

Basic Information

Member Since
Sept. 24, 2017
Last Seen
4 hours ago
Member Type
bridge player

Bridge Information

ACBL Ranking
Sorry, this user has no cards yet.
Board 2 from the 02/08/2018 Common Game
The notrump bid is better for both showing a more specific point range, and the distribution of the points in the suits, I think.
Board 16 from the 02/05/2018 Common Game
Is it really such a nightmare lead problem? I would lead the diamond ace and then play a club in light of the dummy holdings.
Rule of 2 and 3
Read the "Better Preempts" set of articles by Andrew Gumperz. It's really very good.
John Oikonomopoulos's lead problem: J9x KQJTxxx Ax x
I would bid 4 instead of 2 in the bidding.
No 4-card suit
Stig, the distribution is almost certainly neither binomial or Poisson, and simulations of different sizes aren't going to help you figure that out.
Yosep Hutasoit's lead problem: KT72 KJ Q8 AQT73
With the preemptive raise I find it very hard to believe that partner isn't sitting on something in spades or diamonds. Not playing an honor in this situation when sitting behind the strong hand, so spades it is.
Eric Sieg's bidding problem: AK9x J9x QTx xxx
I find it hard to imagine that partner might try to intrude at that point in the bidding with a bunch of spades in his hand.
Steven Mcgrahan's bidding problem: AK753 A KT6 KQ43
Also known (more or less) as immediate double negative.
Buddy Hanby's bidding problem: J AT743 A65 Q984
A lower expected strength of an opponent means a higher expected strength of partner, meaning we should bid more aggressively. It's a similar principle as pre-balancing, isn't it?
Grigory Vinevich's lead problem: 3 53 AJ9854 KT52
Hoping for a singleton diamond with partner. It seems plausible to hope for the table hopping up with the ace on a small club too though.
No followers yet

Bottom Home Top