Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In order to rule that South cannot bid 6 over 5, one has to conclude that the 4 bid was a move towards a small slam, not a grand slam. That is far from clear.

Of course, as everyone always says, if South argues that he was always going to bid 6 and that his 4 bid was a move towards a grand slam, his statements will not be given any weight as they are self-serving.

I find this argument to be silly. South has reasonable play for a grand opposite Jxx of hearts and Kx of diamonds. The 4 bid cannot cost. Oh, no! Partner hesitated! Now I can't bid 6!
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South has a slam bid opposite almost any hand that prefers hearts to the unknown minor. South is justified in bidding 6 over 4. Is it a sure thing? No. But it is likely to be right.

Does North's hesitations imply that slam is more likely to make than without any hesitation? Hard to say. What are the possible reasons for North's hesitations? No matter what North has, it is hard for him to visualize a slam.

Look at this another way. Suppose South were to have passed either 4 or 5 and slam did not make. Would E/W complain that the hesitation caused South not to bid slam?
Jan. 11
Art Korth edited this comment Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Regarding your last statement - doubling contracts is not done anywhere near enough.

Many contracts that go down would make if doubled. Relying on the statistics can be misleading.

And, yes, it is true that some contracts that would otherwise make might go down if doubled. There are several reasons for this which I won't get into. But this is far less common than the former - contracts that would make if doubled that would otherwise go down.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A story told by a friend of mine of an auction against him in a local round-robin team match.

Uncontested, the auction was:

(P) - 1
6 - All Pass

After the 6 bid, my friend asked the 1 bidder“ Was that Drury?”
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was playing in a free individual tournament on BBO recently (yes, I have no life). I had a full opening bid and the auction went like this (I was third seat):

1 - (P) - 1 - (1)
1NT - (2) - 3 - ALL PASS

So, I played in three of the opponents' bid and raised suit. I held Jx of spades. Partner, who passed my cue bid, had KQT9 of spades. The 1 overall was a psych on 3 small.

+140 for an above-average result.
Jan. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure, if he had the K. Somewhat unlikely on the auction.
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are you suggesting that West come down to 5 hearts and the J after seven tricks? Then declarer leads the Q from dummy and makes overtricks.
Jan. 7
Art Korth edited this comment Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you have missed the point.

With due respect to Avon, allow me to rephrase his question:

“Can you name one other country that reinstates cheats on account of some event completely unrelated to the offenses committed by the cheats and without any consideration of the offenses committed by the cheats?”
Jan. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What's radio?
Jan. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I bet if Lanzarotti were entering a major NABC event and there was a loud and vociferous protest from a large group of top-flight players, it might accomplish a lot more than passive protests.
Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I nominate this discussion as an early favorite to win “The Silliest Discussion of the Year” award for 2019.
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lee Hazen is, in fact, listed as a player for the Brooklyn Dodgers in a Wikipedia article (for whatever that is worth).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Brooklyn_Dodgers_players&from=H
Jan. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play Rusinow leads against both NT and suit contracts. I do reverse the normal order of leads when leading from 2 honors doubleton. So, for me, that means A from AK doubleton and K from KQ doubleton (as opposed to the lower of the two honors from length).

I have never seen anyone lead Q from KQ doubleton.
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I remember that a friend of mine and I jointly subscribed when we were in college. We entered one of the contests and won $50.

I don't remember how long the magazine lasted. Clearly, subscriptions and advertising revenue could not finance the prize money it was paying out.
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pogo.

This may not be a direct quote:

We have met the enemy, and it is US.
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Randy:

Regarding (1), I said that the electronic playing environment would exist only in the later rounds of the Spingold and Vanderbilt and the finals of NABC pair and BAM events. A fully electronic tournament is certainly possible. Desirable is another question.

Regarding (2), I said that delaying the appearance of the other three players actions to the fourth player would partially obscure who was taking the most time. It is not a cure all.

Perhaps my ideas can be improved upon. But it is far past the time to just sit still and ignore the problem.
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
By the way, a word about the electronic playing environment.

One of the ways in which information can be conveyed is the amount of time it takes a player to take an action. This can be partially obscured by the software by waiting for each of the three other players to act before revealing the actions to the fourth player. Furthermore, if time permits, the reveal to the fourth player of the actions of the other three should be delayed so that a fairly uniform time period elapses.

I hope that I have explained this the way that I intend for it to be applied. But the concept is clear - try to eliminate UI conveyed by the speed of a player's actions.
Jan. 1
Art Korth edited this comment Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the present era of known and unknown cheats at the highest levels of the game (and certainly a number of known and unknown cheats at lower levels), it never ceases to amaze me that there is significant resistance to moving the late rounds of the Spingold and Vanderbilt KOs and the finals of NABC pair and BAM events to a fully electronic environment. The same can be said for ALL sessions of world championship events.

Would this make it impossible to cheat? Impossible is a strong word. Much more difficult is probably accurate.

With all due respect to the strides made in exposing cheats and seeing that they are properly sanctioned, it is clear that the job has a long way to go. And this is made much more difficult if the national organizations allow those who have been discovered to get back into the game.

So, enough with the “social aspects of the game” and “table feel.” Let's get our major championships clean. There is plenty of time to socialize after the game is done.
Jan. 1
Art Korth edited this comment Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you have a takeout double now after 1m - 1M - 1NT passed back to you, what did you have on the previous round after 1m - 1M?
Dec. 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It makes sense to play a double of 1m - 1NT in passout seat as takeout if your direct takeout double of 1m is not light.

However, a double of the auction 1m - 1M - 1NT in passout seat has to be a trap pass of 1M. Both you and your partner had chances to act previously. With rare exceptions, the only hand where the hand in direct seat over 1M cannot act would be a hand which wanted to penalize 1M (although a direct bid of 2M should be natural).
Dec. 31, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top