Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Avon Wilsmore
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are correct that it's a tricky area…

A vague early thought is that leading the highest card should be a “don't ruff” signal.
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am away from my library, so I am writing from (possibly-inaccurate) memory.

In Kelsey's “More Killing Defence at Bridge”, every second chapter is on discards. If I recall correctly, he covers the subject of pseudo-squeezes.

Of course, in his earlier work (“Killing Defence at Bridge”), every second chapter is on counting, so you are correct to be working on that topic.
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3NT is not my choice… 3 is de facto fourth-suit forcing.
Sept. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree.

5 shows diamonds, letting us know what to do over 5. Maybe this is a double-fit hand…

x AKxxxx KQxxx x
Sept. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe you should worry a whole lot less about what other people think.

Bertrand Russell:
Never give advice to the young, for the things worth knowing are learnt by doing and not by being told.

Get on with things, make your mistakes your way and learn from them. Just like everybody else.

Yes, in matters of expertise and technique, seek wisdom; in matters of behaviour and ethics, sort things out yourself.
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Off-topic, but 1NT is a genuine underbid.

Meanwhile, East must compete and West had nowhere to go. Bad luck.
Sept. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does adopting a new “core principle” mean that anything changes? Or is it just more waffle?

How about:

- Releasing the board details where Bruce Keidan observed foot-tapping, 1975 Bowl, R1. We know board 7; what about the rest?

- Release the Burgay Tape

- What were the recent deliberations regarding an Indonesian pair?

Enough with the cover-ups.
Sept. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not quite… I'm in Thailand until I head to Wuhan.
Sept. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There was, in fact, an article entitled:
Tales From the Past, Part 1: I'm Mad

It was removed on the grounds that it named a particular person.
Sept. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the offer… however, Jerry Lie at PD Times has been kind enough to arrange Chinese teammates for us.
Sept. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, Tim disliked doubleton leads, viewing them as a last resort.

He said once, upon returning from a big tournament in Paris:

It took me a few hands to realise, if they didn't lead a doubleton, they didn't have one!
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So what shape does responder have, with three spades and finds himself “on the third level w/o a fit”?
Aug. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The “toilet rumours” are more fact than fiction.

Players from a particular country would play in big-money European events of the 1970s, and leave slips of paper with a board number and optimum contract/lead/defence secreted about the men's loo.

Later, they would split the prize-money.

How do I know?

In 1982, one of the players who participated in this scheme spent some time telling me the details over a few beers…
Aug. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
unless partner shows out…
Aug. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with MR.

Suppose responder has: xxxxx xxxx Axxx

After
1D 1S
2D ?

What can he do but pass?

Better to raise spades and leave matters to partner.

Denialists are referred to Rubens' excellent article mentioned above:

http://www.australianbridge.com/article_39-5_raisingonthree.php
Aug. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I found what I was looking for…

Many thanks to Henk and the boys at http://bridgedailybulletins.nl/index.php/en/ (Frank and Hans).
Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Andrzej,I cannot agree with what you have done here.

Clearly, you have some thoughts about what bid (non-pass) South should choose.

I think it is proper that you:
- say what that bid is
- put forward your reasoning as to why bid should be found
- optionally (but preferably) provide partner's hand
Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing in diamonds, you take heart ruffs in the long hand; playing in spades you take ruffs in the short hand.

This is a serious matter.

The only reason for bidding 2 and passing 2NT is that you like (as we surely all do) to watch partner suffer and squirm.
Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Funny you should mention that…

As I said, the methods at the club were very basic, including high encourage/low discourage and high-low = even.

No variations, no extra partnership arrangements.

One day I declared a hand against two Poles. At the end of the hand:

P1: Why did you play a spade? My nine of hearts asked for a club

P2: (Something in Polish)

P1: Oops!
Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With 2 1/2 Quick Tricks (yes, I am a very old man) I think opening is clear.

What do the 2 bidders intend to do when partner gives presference back to diamonds?

http://www.australianbridge.com/article_39-5_raisingonthree.php
Aug. 24
.

Bottom Home Top