Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Andrzej Matuszewski
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bidding 2!
Your concept of passing in the first round is also effective!
Pd will bid 1 or double. Then it will be a possibility to reach 4!
Jan. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem in this quiz is the following:
How to check the possibility of our 4?
NOW IN THE SECOND ROUND we know that pd has 4+ spades. However there exists a very small that pd has only 3 spades.
So NOW I'm not happy that earlier I did not bid 1NT. After 1NT I'd know everything.
Jan. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The only dilemma for me is to choose between 6 and 6NT.
4 is theoretically possible assuming pd has a weak hand with 4 hearts. Probability of this is low.
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is at MPs. Pd with shortness in clubs can think that they may win. Especially that 3 was said in adverse vulnerability. Therefore arguments in favor of: extras or being forcing, are VERY WEAK.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can give you a name… First obligation of a pair of experts is to play the same system - whatever it is.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand was played with a really very good player, but only occasional as my partner. Our agreements were (and are) not very sophisticated. But once we have certain agreements we must follow them…
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, I raised this particular case erronously.
Nevertheless thanks for discussion, which
is most the important aspect of this Forum (at least from my viewpoint).
The only hope of N is our 10. Even with our 10 singleton declarer has to guess or everyting depends on: who holds 8.
Wether N cashes A or not declarer must be set, it seems.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, Phil! This is simple but also quite real hope!
This might not work in case declarer has a small singleton in hearts.
Jan. 16
Andrzej Matuszewski edited this comment Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, Richard! I must rethink the problem to make a promotion more elegant.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Real distribution and a nice coup was as follows.
_______________A8x
_______________10xx
_______________AJxx3
_______________xx

97___________________________KQJxxx
7____________________________Ax
K1087________________________9x
KQJ742_______________________Axx

_______________106
_______________KQJ8654
_______________Q5
_______________96

After Q and diamonds continuation, N played another diamond.
Declarer has to ruff high. He continued with the next high spade.
N won and continued with diamonds. This promoted N's 8!!!

It is interesting that this promotion does not work if distribution of spades between N and S is:
A10x

8x
In this case declarer - after the first ruff - enters to dummy with clubs and plays 9!!!
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You mean: rebid 4?
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
9.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Additional quiz: What pd's hand allows us to set the contract (assuming the bidding was absolutely correct).
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Logically this option is non-necessary, but not everyone knows the formal logic.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This time the point is elsewhere, Richard!
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Frankly speaking, I don't know. It was an opps' declarer play problem.
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
6. Yes it plays the role!
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But we want to play in major even if pd has tripleton in one of majors.
OK. May this strategy is more appropriate at MPs.
Jan. 6
Andrzej Matuszewski edited this comment Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Strange: I thought that 3 is obvious…
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4 or 4 is obvious forcing at IMPs. It is non-sense to look for other partial at the level 4. But such arrangment is not obligatory at MPs. If we would have it I did not put this bidding problem.
Jan. 3
.

Bottom Home Top