Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Allan Graves
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
All East’s bidding and play suggest QX H . . Convincing oneself to the contrary is the sort of over thinking that occurs at world championships and must be guarded against . The argument proving that the obvious inferences are incorrect is not compelling enough to negate them . If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck etc
Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike Lawrence in one of the greatest bridge books ever “ How to read the opponents cards “ had a section on reading tempo
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That was back in the days of “ Black Magic “ and Edgar Kaplan’ ground breaking article in the Bridge World . Circus 1958 if memory serves
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Natural strong 2 bids were one thing and were pretty accurate. Frequency and tactical considerations gave way to more frequent and creative uses of the 2 level and the GF hands were all lumped into two clubs. Marty Harris is on to something for sure. My good friend Kokish always espoused very strong 2 suiters to open at the 1 level and if you don"t want to go full Harris then play very strong 1 bids on 2 suiters , and perhaps a destructive Multi 0-7 with big balanced hands included which leaves your 2C bid mostly one suiters. 2/1 control rsp are very good opposite one suiters ( and opposite balanced hands especially if you can get it done by a 2NT rebid.
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Keep the screens of course. Get rid of all the paraphernalia that the cheats will always have a field day with. I am not a favourite of online bridge tournaments but we can use bidding machines so that the tray and bid boxes are not needed. Keep the card play.
Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Beautiful eulogy . Thanks Fred.
Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
definitely record this.
July 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
oui
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The benefits are you can open 4Hor 4S strategically. My definition is that 4 m is “ classic ” 4M is not. Would open the 1st one 4C but not the second. I would open 1H with the second.
namyats is not everyones cup of tea but aggressive tactical 4 M openings are effective and Namyats reduces some of the risk.
July 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The idea of mandatory tempo management is the way to resolve a number of these issues.
Although Boye did not directly state so, it follows that RHO must play at the end of the tempo pause. The bridge master of the future will be one that can bid and play expertly in tempo in all such situations. I believe the situation that decided the pairs was X XX KQJTXX. QJ9X
favourable opened 3D ( P ) 3NT (X) P (P) 4D (P) P (4S ) P (P) and was not allowed to bid 5D
If it have this wrong please correct it .
thanks
July 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Fred and Sheri and of course Magic
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The current regulations seem reasonable in that some time must pass . This is not really an issueI IMO . It is OK if the best players in the world are playing in the World Championships as long as they are legal residents of the country they are playing for.
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Who did something other than 1s in a world championship ?
June 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Only by opener , only when opps have raised or implied raise to 2 Major and responder has bid at the one level neg X , 1M or 1NT. Having those constraints result in a solid imp gain ratio. Probably should change to bad good but not worth fretting over .
June 24
Allan Graves edited this comment June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff Bayonne I was replying to Jeff L . LOL.I forgot there were more Jeff’s
Please forgive me . The most important point perhaps is that beginners feel confident in playing the game and developing an appreciation that Bridge is accessible regardless of skill level as long as you are in your peer group .
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dear Jeff . I don't think you read my post carefully. That is ok, I won't take it personally .Both on defense and in the bidding counting winning tricks is the key planning tool, Your winning tricks first, then of course , their winning tricks. You do this during the measure twice cut once phase. You want the card play synchronized to the bidding ASAP when teaching beginners Everything starts to flow from that. ( the losing trick count bidding evaluation system is also very flawed ) By the way, most beginner card play books use the counting losers technique for planning play at trump contracts. It doesn't make it correct . There are many reasons why famous players write beginning bridge books. As far as the true believers in the Losers' camp, the flat earth society was once in the majority. It doesn't mean they are poor teachers just as it didn't mean that “flat earthers” had bad eyesight. if you have always played bridge counting winers first in NT and losers first in suits then of course you are going to do the same if you are teaching new players. As long as they like your teaching and curriculum and continue to play then that is the main thing.
June 17
Allan Graves edited this comment June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree 100% with a focus on winning tricks ( before the defence achieves their winning tricks goal ) and with those arguments supporting that approach. It also applies to defensive card play. You do the learner a great disservice by focusing on losers ahead of winners. Rank ( may involve promotion),“ Length ”( through exhausting the opponents of the suit ) and Position ( ie finesse etc ) are the same in NT or Trumps. Basic probability should also be mentioned. The various ways that trumps facilitate taking tricks because they outrank the other three suits are part of the magic of bridge and certainly, any new player can appreciate those ways if properly presented. Trick winning applies to the bidding as well. Bidding anticipates the play. The better you play the better you will bid. Bidding is gambling on trick totals so evaluating trick winning is paramount to becoming a better bidder and appreciating the inherent risk/reward principle which is the ground of the scoring and therefore the ground of the game, Clearly what the defence can or will win, or if on defence ,what declarer can or will win is important but again you are simply counting tricks. Just their tricks. Must win X before they win Y. All “ advanced ” techniques are driven by trick counting and are needlessly complicated or almost impossible if your primary focus is on losers. That is because your winning tricks will be determined by events that will occur as the hand evolves. If that, then this. It is not as if “ make your hand good at a trump contract ” leads to brilliant beginning declarers and indeed by masking what is actually going on it hinders them.
Therefore teach the winning tricks approach to beginners in both NT or Trumps.
June 16
Allan Graves edited this comment June 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A good general agreement for all partnerships is “ all doubles are non penalty until we find a fit. Then Doubles are penalty ” From that you make a list of exceptions. Ergo this double is penalty . Kit's logic is as good as any so I see no need to make an exception. Regarding “ non penalty doubles ” you should further differentiate into takeout , points, or conventional and further have some general definition regarding how many cards a non penalty double is “ expected” to have in the opponents suit.
June 15
Allan Graves edited this comment June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very well done
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is brilliant Kit
It is exactly how Ghandi approached many such issues.
May 7
.

Bottom Home Top