Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Avon Wilsmore
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with the above.

Why can North not hold:

xxx x AKx Axxxxx ?

Answer: Because a huddle almost always shows extras…


Edit: typo
March 10
Avon Wilsmore edited this comment March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Like others in this discussion, I am lost.

The article said:

…instead of ten trumps I had nine and they broke 2-2.

Any mention of singletons or voids is off-topic. If such layouts were relevant (which they are not), I am sure just about everyone here knows about Vacant Places.

But the article discussed:

- a 2-2 break

- the thinking by declarer of a particular spot-card in that doubleton held by a player

The question is, does that thinking by declarer aid in locating a particular card in another suit?

My question was, if this is the case, is it true that thinking of *two* cards (relevant one time in 6) is of even greater benefit when trying to locate some key card of a different suit?

If that is the case, what of the paradox that the two specific cards held by one opponent is equal to two specific cards held by the other opponent.

Any discussion of this should not contain the words “singleton”, “void” or “shortage”.
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The article put forward a proposition:

…when I play off a solid suit I should think of a card: when I find out where it is I should play the other hand for the queen and this will work 51% of the time.

Suppose I am looking for a particular card when in a grand slam, missing the 5,4,3 and 2 or trumps. Rather than thinking of one card that an opponent holds, I think of two: the 2 and 3 of trumps, thereby increasing my chances.

Trumps are 2-2 and it's my lucky day: the same player has both cards. So, I play the other player for the particular card.

Of course, this is ridiculous; I might as well have said, “4 and 5”, and thereby reversed my choice.

In what sense, if any, is this related to the original question?
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
More editing needed in the text on P4.
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am certain the author was Paul Loonykacs.
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After WW1 and the Spanish flu, my father was the only survivor of his last year of high school…
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Puzzled… do we have the N-S auction reversed on the 2nd deal?
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can see that a club to the 9 is as good as a club to the jack…

I'm not so sure, as regards the suit in isolation. Low to the jack picks up all 10x, while low to the nine does not pick up Qx onside… we have to crunch dummy's jack.
March 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Disagree.

What is known in the US as Garbage Stayman was first described by Alan Truscott in 1959 (The Second Stage of Stayman; see here:
http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/ebumagazine/1959-03.pdf
http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/ebumagazine/1959-02.pdf )

It is clear that the Garbage/Scramble/Drop Dead component refers to responder's later bids at the two-level, *not* the fact that standard Stayman may have a 4-4-5-0 Yarborough.
March 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
FWIW, here is the Australian Bridge Federation's position regarding the 2020 PABF…

http://www.abf.com.au/impact-of-corona-virus-on-apbf-congress/
March 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With RHO having the majors, I am confident partner has the clubs locked-up. Suppose dummy is 2-4 in the majors… three rounds of trumps will leave them with a bundle of losers.

Tim Seres used to say, of deals where the defenders had the clear balance of power, “If you want a small penalty, lead your short suit. If you want a big penalty, attack their trumps.”
March 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Double (penalties) and lead a low trump, should this be the final contract, in 1976, 1996 and 2026.
March 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And East could have the bare 9, 8, 7 or 6 of a minor… so, eight solutions.
March 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AQ AKQ AKQJ987 A

West leads A,Q…
March 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes… The Bet was a true masterpiece. Maybe the best bridge fiction ever.
March 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
xx AKJxx xxx AKJ

I would open 1 and rebid 2.

Otherwise, I often open 1NT with a 5CM.
March 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ortiz-Patiño gave an interview in 1978. He refered to:

… national organisations which, through their own weakness, fear, or the laws of their country over which they have no control, are unable to weed out these players from their own organisations.

It was about then that the WBF made their events “invitation-only”. Forquet, early 50s, had played his last game for
Italy when the Burgay Tape scandal hit (1976), with the exception of his appearance at the age of 80 in the 2005 World Senior Teams.
March 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not all of these will work, but start here…

https://www.bbcode.org/reference.php
Feb. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know for fact that a group lobbied the WBF to exclude a pair from Wuhan, on the grounds that they were known cheats.

I have played against that pair. I (and my partner) observed the illicit signalling in action.

Despite a lot of talk, I have seen no evidence that the WBF has any interest in policing the game.

This is how David Harris, WBF General Counsel, described the events of 2015:

The bridge playing community generally has supported the method used to focus attention on a perceived problem of cheating and claim justification by the resulting team withdrawals.

…perceived problem of cheating…

Well, I'm so glad that no actual cheating was going on, otherwise we would have had a problem on our hands.
Feb. 29
.

Bottom Home Top