Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't double followed by a cue bid the substitute for the old-fashioned powerhouse cue bid that I learned in the old Goren texts (before two-suited cue bids became popular)?
Nov. 14, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bidding turned out to be wrong. Partner had AKQJxx of hearts and a small singleton club. Both 3 and 3 got doubled. Bidding turned -50 into -300. I bid 3 at the table.
Nov. 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No. You win the A in hand, pull all 3 outstanding trump ending in hand and cash 2 diamonds, pitching hearts.
Nov. 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Exactly. And if the missing card is another spade he should bid 8.
Nov. 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Clearly 2 was natural. He had 2 diamonds.

Similarly, 3 was natural. He had 3 hearts.

6, however, was an underbid.

Where is the 13th card?
Nov. 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You may be correct that many people see the size of the board is the biggest governance problem to solve. Perhaps it would be more accurate to state that the size of the board is one of the problems to solve.

One has to start somewhere.
Nov. 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's why I could not catch up to Dave!
Nov. 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don:

We don't know that a smaller Board will definitely be a better Board. But I believe that there is a general consensus that the present Board is too large.

We can only hope that a smaller Board, with the ability to call on non-Board members for specific tasks, will function better than the present Board.
Nov. 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Funny you should mention that you are half the age of the average ACBL member.

I used to measure my age relative to Dave Treadwell. I started playing bridge when I was 16. I first played against Dave when I was 17. He was 61 at the time. So I was approximately 1/4 Treadwell.

As I became a seasoned tournament player, my circle of friends included Dave. Still later, we would become frequent partners. By the time I was 44, Dave was 88. I had made it to 1/2 Treadwell.

Dave and I were partners on the District 4 GNT winning team in 2006 (along with Daisy Goecker and David Better). He was 94 at the time.

Shortly thereafter, I made it a point to do all of the driving when playing with Dave. I don't remember if he had yet had his driving privileges take away, but anyone who knew him knows that they should have been.

By the time of Dave's death in 2010, he was 97 and I was two months shy of my 54th birthday. The relative age gap was closing.

At 63, I am approaching the average age of ACBL players (or have I already achieved this dubious distinction?). I am finally older than Dave was when I first played against him. In any case, if I can make it to full Treadwell, I have a number of years left.
Nov. 11, 2019
Art Korth edited this comment Nov. 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This proposal to reduce the size of the BOD is a step in the right direction.

After so many years of no action on this issue, we finally have a proposal which may succeed. It will take some time for full implementation of the reduction, but at least it will happen.

Failure to adopt this change will just result in many more years of nothing happening.
Nov. 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a rule with my partner in this situation:

1. For the prospective declarer, 3NT is non-serious, 4 level cue bids are serious.

2. For the prospective dummy, 3NT is serious, 4 level cue bids are non-serious.

So, in this situation, 3NT is non-serious.

Bidding 3NT non-serious is cooperative. Partner is invited to cue bid. It just shows the inability to make a serious cue bid.
Nov. 9, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“In the 7♠ hand, finessing is a no win play - if the finesse is right, RHO can ruff.”

That is the point.
Nov. 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a couple of nominations.

I was a witness to this one. I was watching a local round-robin team match. A friend was in 3NT reached in an uncontested auction. His spade holding was singleton K in hand facing singleton small in the dummy. A low spade was led. RHO put in the Q from AQx.

This one I heard about. Again the setting is a local round-robin team match. Declarer was in 7. A small diamond was led. Declarer had a 6-5 diamond fit missing the K (again, spades is trump). The Ace was in dummy. Declarer played low …
Nov. 6, 2019
Art Korth edited this comment Nov. 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“What do you do with 4S-6H and 10HCPs when partner opens 1NT? He could have 4 Spades and 2 Hearts.”

Smolen?
Nov. 1, 2019
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
15 or 16 is too good to balance with a simple “overcall.” A simple bid in a suit in balancing seat should be limited to about 14.
Oct. 31, 2019
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South did not balance with a double or a jump (balancing with 2 is not unreasonable). Therefore, North's pass is reasonable.

The final contract is also reasonable.
Oct. 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gary, I don't agree.

If 6 is very likely to make, there should be some rational way of bidding it. If the partnership does not reach 6, it is reasonable fodder for a ATB.

Just last week my partner and I were the only pair in a Sectional pair game to reach a very reasonable 6 contract. It required a 3-2 trump split and a particular side suit to break 4-2 or better. The trump were 3-2, but the side suit was 5-1. This gave us a zero against the second place pair (we were third).

I could not figure out a good way to make the slam against 4-1 trump, so I ignored it in the play, and it turned out to be irrelevant. For practical purposes, assume that there is no way to make the slam against a 4-1 trump break.

I would guess that the slam was much better than 50-50 to make. Whether it is right to bid it is another question (if all of the other pairs are in game and go plus, it is right to bid a better than 50% slam, but if any other pair is in a partial and goes plus, bidding the slam may not be right).

Would it be improper to ATB the pairs that don't find a good 6?

(As an aside, yes, we would have been second if we had not bid the slam. But I don't think it is reasonable to factor in your and your opponents' estimated relative standing into the equation. That would be 20-20 hindsight in the extreme.)

https://live.acbl.org/event/1910104/2503/1/board-detail/A?board_num=22
Oct. 30, 2019
Art Korth edited this comment Oct. 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You could make a similar argument from the other side, such as North could have – KJTxx KQ KQJxxx and bid it the same way. Why would South bid more?
Oct. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is nothing wrong with using Blackwood here, provided:

(1) South knows that North must have 4 hearts for his bid; and

(2) South is using Blackwood to avoid bidding a slam off two key cards.

So, upon learning that North has a key card, South must bid slam. If he is not willing to do so with that information, he shouldn't have used Blackwood to begin with.

Whether you or I think that the number of key cards North holds is sufficient to determine whether a slam should be bid is another question.

It appears that South did not know that North had to have 4 hearts, as South asked about the Q before deciding not to bid the slam.
Oct. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Meckwell.

Double = single suited in one of the minors or both majors.
2 = Clubs and another suit.
2 = Diamonds and a major.
2 = Hearts.
2 = Spades.

EDIT

It is certainly possible that he could have just 5 hearts.
Oct. 29, 2019
Art Korth edited this comment Oct. 29, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top