Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Winston Chang
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 15 16 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is strange – I can't revert my system back to that stage, so I don't know. According to their FAQs, there is supposed to be a “Create an Account” button that you use, enter your name and email for verification, and that's it, but it seems like it's not working that way for you.

https://www.funbridge.com/en/help_faq/touch/account-creation-and-email-address-certification#view-faq

You could try the download link again here:
https://www.funbridge.com/en/download/thankyou

This downloads a file named FWDMFR_4260.EXE, which is the Funbridge installer, in case you don't have the latest version on your computer.
Aug. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On PC, if you have created an account and are logged in, there should be a row of icons on the bottom (chat bubble, exclamation point, shopping cart, magnifying glass, ancient TV screen with antenna). If you click on the TV screen icon, it should take you to “Funbridge Live” with “in progress”, “soon”, and “archives” tabs on the top. Right now there is nothing “in progress” but when Vugraph is going on, you should be able to access it from there.
Aug. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, forcing.
Aug. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry - just checked the hand and the meaning of the pass over 2 (it was on Funbridge); pass over 2 shows 12-16 but does not deny 3 .

Partner's hand turns out to be:
Q74 72 AKQT82 75
July 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, 2NT is typically used for invitational purposes, but there is no “pure” invite.
July 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for catching - I had the minor suits reversed (fixed now).
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
NS normally play 6 of a new suit as a 3rd round control ask (except if the trump Q is specifically asked and denied) – is it clear that in this auction 6 should/must be a NF choice of slams?
May 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's not available on this sequence. Over 1NT - (2), 3 would be inv+ in .
May 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, something like 2-4 hcp and 6 spades
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, tried to avoid making multiple polls and made this answering scheme too complicated. Bid 2nt and pass 3 = pass in the poll. Pass 2 = 7 in the poll (although maybe I should have assigned it to 5).
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, he can pass
April 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He can have 4; with 5+ he would have bid 2 instead of 2
April 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
NS aren't playing Flannery.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks – Helgemo and his counterpart both doubled with this hand, although in that case the opener had bid 1, not 1. The double turned out necessary to prevent a part score swing, so I was wondering if the double should have reasonably been made over 1 here.
March 22
Winston Chang edited this comment March 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, I can see this now but we did not have the agreement firmly in place.
March 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's not always a matter of hiding agreements –

At the Chicago NABC a few years ago, an alert (I believe delayed, made before the lead) was made at my table based on an understanding made in a noncompetitive situation – it was some kind of splinter. The alerter's partner (declarer) agreed that there was such an agreement in a noncompetitive auction, but did not intend it that way in a competitive auction, but did not correct (thinking that maybe he made a mistake).

Director ruled against the alerting side on this point, saying that even though there had been a relevant agreement in a noncompetitive auction, the alerting side had no agreement in the competitive auction and should not have alerted (or partner should have corrected to say “no agreement”). When asked, director specifically said that it was most appropriate to act on the basis that there was no agreement.

As a result of that ruling, since then, I have said “no agreement” unless a particular sequence has been addressed in discussion (either through a specific or general rule) – this happens mostly in competitive auctions.
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North was the pro, and per Peg the hesitation was before 2.
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's a little hard to tell. The client has played in 10-12 regionals a year, and the pro has been on the client's team for a few years, but may actually have been playing with another pro partner for much of this time, with the client often partnering a 3rd pro or sitting out half the match. So it's possible this particular partnership is more like a “frequent” than an “established” partnership.
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is enough identifying info in the description to identify that North is the pro.
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations!
March 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 15 16 17
.

Bottom Home Top