Join Bridge Winners

Bridge Winners Profile for Paul Barden

Paul Barden
Paul Barden
  • 0
  • 16
  • 18
  • 0

Basic Information

Member Since
Aug. 20, 2015
Last Seen
6 hours ago
Member Type
Bridge Player
about me

EBU biography

United Kingdom

Bridge Information

ACBL Ranking
Sorry, this user has no cards yet.
Great Players; Great Books
I read an ex-library copy of Love on a beach in Greece many years ago. I promptly forgot what BLUE means, but I recall that all the hands were reported to have been played by sundry members of the bridge community in Ann Arbor. In practice, most squeezes in practical ...
Why is it worth taking part in an appeal committee?
I'd be comfortable with a procedural penalty for a slow follow up to 5NT. There's no reason at all not to plan what you're going to do next when deciding to bid 5.
What has partner got?
If you play these methods, 4 is your only super-accept; it doesn't say anything about clubs. So 4 is asystemic. The meaning of an asystemic bid should be either that you've forgotten the system, or that you've resorted your hand. If you choose to bid ...
Does this create some kind of UI problem?
It's not very uncommon to play 2 as a puppet to 2, which may be passed. Were you willing to defend 2 if that were opponents' agreement?
Written defences
It's legal not to look at the written defence (or not to ask about the meaning of an alerted call, or not to consult opponents' convention card). It's illegal to interpret the meaning of partner's call differently according to whether or not he consulted the written defence ...
Written defences
This sort of method is routinely used in this country against many sorts of conventional bid, including for example transfer responses to a 1 opening. Since the fact that partner asked (or didn't ask) a question is UI, players should bid on the basis that partner knows opponents ...
Accept the Transfer
I'm not convinced that the diamond lead is best. It seems to me that there are a lot of layouts where it helps declarer. For example if you swap the queen and jack of clubs in the actual deal.
Any hand-evaluation method can be made more accurate at the expense of added complexity. But my observation is that experts don't bid like that. The important thing is not how many Modified Zargian Valuation Points you've got, but how many tricks you're going to make.
It seems to me that the main problem here is that West is bidding according to LTC, while East is bidding according to Rosenberg (if I may call it that). Neither method will get every hand right, but mismatched methods will get a lot of hands wrong.
Insufficient Qbid: Is a Sufficient Qbid Comparable?
Thanks Gordon. So the approach is to think of all possible meanings, and consider whether the candidate call carries a subset of the union of the possible meanings?
Not following anyone yet

Bottom Home Top