Join Bridge Winners

Bridge Winners Profile for Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski
Andrzej Matuszewski
  • 28
  • 16
  • 235
  • 258

Basic Information

Member Since
July 21, 2012
Last Seen
Jan. 20
Member Type
Bridge Player
about me
Statistician with interests in: sociology, history, psychology, pure mathematics, ecology and MUSIC

Bridge Information

Regular Bridge Partners
Jerzy Orysiak, Tadeusz Skalski, Roman Krzemien
ACBL Ranking
subjective Standard Polish Club
Copy to my cards View/Print
David Libchaber's bidding problem: KQJ83 843 3 QJ97
Mass is more than obvious at IMPs. Here 2 must be taken into account seriously...
Selena Pepić's bidding problem: 4 JT73 T842 T832
4N is obvious but it has a disadvantage. After pd will bid his Minor they will have oportunity to bid 5. After direct 5 they will have less information.
David Parsons's bidding problem: 74 A9862 KT93 62
Now 4 and 5 if they will go 4.
Winston Chang's bidding problem: KQT75 54 AKT2 K5
4, double and pass each with probability 33%.
Craig Zastera's bidding problem: Q8 A7642 AQ54 A3
Yes, double with 3 after pd's 3 is an alternative...
Andrzej Matuszewski's bidding problem: A52 76 975 AJT74
Very good analysis! 3 has a disadvantage, however. They can go to 4 if one of them has singleton in clubs.
Andrzej Matuszewski's bidding problem: A52 76 975 AJT74
My decision was also pass, which was minus 6. Not a tragedy. But then came a reflection: they can only go to 4 if they have good diamonds. In such a case we have real chances for 4.
Bridge Magazine RIP?
I remember how Bridge Today was dying. It was extremely sad...
Andrzej Matuszewski's bidding problem: A52 76 975 AJT74
May be I explain my motif. Yes, there exists a danger that after our 3 they will go to 4. But then we can bid 4, which has chances.
Paul D East's bidding problem: KQ84 3 AK7 AT843
At IMPs one could consider simulation which contract is better: 3N or 4S for our side. At MPs such simulation has no sense since 620 > 600.

Bottom Home Top