Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Avon Wilsmore
1 2 3 4 ... 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 ... 92 93 94 95
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for posting that.

It is very important, in my view, that details of proven cheating be widely disseminated. The desperate attempts by the cheats to have the hearing shut down show how much they hate the word getting out.

I commend the WBF on their fine research into the matter, and their decisive response. An amazing improvement when compared to the stuff-up of 1975.
March 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Crosswood = 4(other minor)
Mr Dirksen is correct; Redwood = Kickback = 4m+1
March 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree. Thanks for making the effort.
March 26, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Consider a suit such as:

….A643
K875…J9
….Q102

Leading 3rd highest blows a trick by force.

The main reason not to lead 3rds at NT is that leading from, say, Q1082 will be disastrous far too often.
March 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can't help you directly, but if movements are your cup of tea:

http://www.bridgeshop.com.au/duplicate-bridge-schedules-history-and-mathematics-mckinnon.html

March 19, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am sure this “trick reduction” is “easy but sophisticated”, however I will try for the novel “trick creation” in hearts. How gauche of me!
March 19, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mr Heitzman is getting himself an introduction to Eric Berne's “Yes, but…” game.

It doesn't end until the provider of solutions gives up in exasperation, allowing the other party to feel virtuous and vindicated.

Mr Pokorny and one other BW contributor like this game very much and waste no opportunity to enjoy themselves.
March 18, 2014
Avon Wilsmore edited this comment March 18, 2014
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.
Second that.

There are enough weirdos raving about the evils of this or that on various sites, without inviting non-bridge discussions on this site. There may be a faster way of poisoning BridgeWinners, but I can't think what it is.

Anyone who wants a vigorous discussion on a non-bridge topic can go here:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/
March 15, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One does not need a simulation.

From: http://www.bridgehands.com/P/Probability_HCP.htm we see:

15: 4.42%
16: 3.31%
17: 2.36%
—-
10.09

Giving relative percentages:
15: 43.8
16: 32.8
17: 23.4
—-
100.0
March 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A read of Bridge Odds For Practical Players, Kelsey & Glauert, will clarify the right line on hands like this.

Rubens' Expert Bridge Simplified is also good.
March 10, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suspect the US BW members will not have a great deal contribute as regards “general experience” of 2 (W2M)

Pity.
March 9, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hate to be obtuse, but could you supply a typical hand where it's better to be in 6 than 6?

I've already given my deal, where I want to be in 6S.

AQxxx KQ10x x xxx

K854 A985 A976 7

Yes, a 4-4 fit is often the better slam, but not here, where there is no useful discard on the long spade.

March 9, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ending is also known as a Seres Squeeze…
March 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good problem. I like pass and low spade, going for 200+. The chance of this costing a trick is remote.
March 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I find myself a dissenter regarding some of the comments so far.

- People bidding 4 had better be prepared to play there, with no gain over 4 that I can see.

- People bidding 4 will miss a good slam sometimes, and looking is cost-free.

- “I don't have a source of tricks” is misleading; we have fillers in partner's second suit, a fourth spade and we will provide one or more club ruffs. With the fitting heart honours, this hand is anything but minimum.

- While it is true a 4441 generally plays badly, in this case we may be opposite a 5-4-1-3, which will play super-well.

Game is excellent opposite:
Axxxx KJxx x xxx so we have enough to bid game with confidence.

We need to make some sort of extra move in case partner has more, such as:
AQxxx KQ10x x xxx where slam is very good.

March 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AQxxx KQ10x x xxx

Culbertson's Law: It is correct to try for slam when a perfect minimum makes it laydown.

The example makes for an excellent slam so I have to do what I can to get us there. O for the courage to essay 5 (splinter)!
March 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, next time E-W bid a quick 4 and make 5…
March 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What about Aspro and its variants? Plenty of pairs still like it.
March 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for taking the time to answer people's queries.

Do you have an opinion about the conclusions reached by Bird and Anthias regarding opening leads, from their work with simulations?
Feb. 28, 2014
1 2 3 4 ... 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 ... 92 93 94 95
.

Bottom Home Top