Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Thomas Berg
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is the first time I flag!

It is essential and so important that we all can trust and know for sure WHO is the writer/author.

Sorry Rolf - but too bad joke.
Dec. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course it is not a true letter/statement from WBF or mr. Rona. They do not work in the weekends!;)

But I think it is not a an ok joke by Rolf Olsen. Could have been if the date is 1st. of april.
Dec. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ Hanan

I read it 4 days ago!
Dec. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Hanan

Read Neapolitan Club p.1. There is the statement from IBF about cancelling the hearing.
Dec. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It shows that he ( Lotan ) has humor and self irony!
Dec. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ Timo

Why play 2 in a major 1-3 down = 100 - 300 instead let opp. play 2D = 90 - 130?

And I do not see anything “fantastic” about 4423 shape by S. If 55 in majors then it is right shape and you can D with 0p. But with a standard 4423 you must have some points 4-5.
Dec. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ Chen.

I do not think that S with only 2-3p will double vulnerable in second round knowing that E is strong sitting behind partner and knowing that if there is a fit in one of the majors the suit will probably break bad. This is IMO losing bridge - specially BAM and vulnerable. If not vulnerable a D is more tempting.

It has to be N who has upgraded his hand because of the good clubs. S must have 4-5p for his D. And that`s the way it was at the table.:)
Dec. 16, 2015
Thomas Berg edited this comment Dec. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Which right shape?
Dec. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because we know that he has not the promised 18-19. So bidding like this shows long running clubs. If N had 15-17 with 5 clubs he would have opened 1NT.

Partner has extra=14-16, S has 3-5, W has 5. So how many points left for N? Thats why he must have 6 clubs - and for almost sure 6 running clubs!
Dec. 15, 2015
Thomas Berg edited this comment Dec. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ Timo!

Take it easy and relax!

You very often get so angry and upset!

But even You must admit that it is a very good thing to know the bidding when you try to find a LA - and you did not know the bidding! :(:(

But please tell from where/how NS will get their 4-5 tricks outside club suit to defeat 3D! If You can not there is for sure no LA!
Dec. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ Timo!

I appreciate that You now admit that You did not know the bidding until Kevin Perkins explained it to You - then You discover ( after argueing and discussing for 3-4 days ) that You did not notice Souths D.

But Hola! - it just make your arguments even better!! Lucky You!

But IMHO you are wrong. Because Souths D on this bidding shows at least 3 clubs and N´s 3C bid must show at least 6 clubs so now W knows that partner has 0-1 clubs and W knows that partner has no vasted values in clubs. So from where/how is N-S going to find 4-5 tricks outside the club suit when E has shown extra by bidding 2D voluntary? And 2D shows extra/more than a minimum in my book - and in this E-W pair`s book too I can see.
Dec. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ Sher!

The last 10-15 years we have played with the enforced delay here in Denmark! :)

And it works of course very fine!!
Dec. 13, 2015
Thomas Berg edited this comment Dec. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ Dear Timo!

I was trying to help you, thinking that you did not know the law exactly. I had no idea the problem is so much severe than I could have possibly imagined, until I read your last reply.
Dec. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
§ Timo!

We will never agree on this!

You read the two paragraphs different from me - and I think I am right and then you are wrong!

But that is irrelevant - because we have TD, polls and AC to settle the case. And I am satisfied with that - even if I am wrong ( can not remember last time I was wrong! ;);) )

Best regards :)
Dec. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Cohen.

Some times it turns out that the poll and AC agree that there is no LA - like this hand! You and Timo seems to think that it is so easy to determine if there is a LA but it is not! And when TD, poll and AC accept the “terrible violation” it is because they do not know anything about bridge and are stupid ignorants etc. Please accept and realise that there are more than one point of view.

But do not think that I do not know when I am in a no win situation - of course I do know when! But I am tired of this “activ ethics” ( which reminds me of “political correctnes”). Unless it is crystal clear that your partners BIT has put you in a no win situation - then bid and follow §73C. If you are wrong let the TD tell you. Do not start bending, streching etc. This is bridge not gymnastics!!

Amen! :)
Dec. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Timo!

And §73C?

I will follow the law and bid like there has been no hesitation. It is not up to me to judge myself! That is why we have a TD and AC. :)
Dec. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ Timo.

The call I intend to make is of course not suggested by partners hesitation. Read what I write in my conclusion.

The start is an answer to Rosenberg. That is why I use the word “think”.

If I change my bid from my intended bid to another bid because of partners hesitation - THEN it is misuse of UI! Read § 73C.



Dec. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ Gold.

Yes!
Dec. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ Gold.

IMO it is a matter of style. I would not open 3C in first hand red vs. white with 7 losers. But it depends on your agreements with partner - like so much in bridge.
Dec. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ Gold.

I gave this problem to my partner Geert Joergensen. He played a heart in trick 3 using the same argument as I have written. :)

But he was not tired like the players in Reisinger! ;)
Dec. 11, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top