Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Barry Rigal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 99 100 101 102
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is curious how hard the defenses to winkles and vices can be when LHO in this example has to keep a long irrelevant card in the off suit. I'll try to post a winkle example later.
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Back 35-40 years or so ago I was playing with David Burn in the final one day event at the Guardian Easter pairs…I cant be more specific about the year, sorry. This wasn't a frivolous event; not as strong as the main Guardian pairs but the equivalent of a regional pairs field in the US.
We were playing a deal when one of the players counted to 12 cards we did our arithmetic and the deal had only 51 cards. The TD was called and the card was still missing. The TD went back to the previous table; no dice. At this point I went round the room searching for the missing card. We went back four or five rounds and the missing card was discovered under the table there. so It had been played four times with 51 cards.
I don't remember what I got but we won and the prizes were LP records and David took the one I'd wanted which was Hotel California.
Dec. 11
Barry Rigal edited this comment Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kieran I agree in theory but not ALL 5332 hands for us.
opening 1C with xx/AKQxx/Qxx/Jxx and hearing 1S-P-4S…not for me.
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know Bill Gates has won some fairly significant events; but to make the second day of the Reisinger on a team of four is surely something worth us all giving him credit for.
It took me about five tries to make the second day and when I did I was really happy. Making the last day was at the time my best achievement is US bridge. And I needed to be playing with John Solodar to do it.
Dec. 1
Barry Rigal edited this comment Dec. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've added in the ending.
Re what was said above, my view of the elopement is that it shouldn't simply be leading a card and scoring a trump; the defenders must have more than one option and all routes should allow declarer to generate an extra trick.
Anyway, the ending is pretty, complex elopement or otherwise.
Nov. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wonder whether the 1977 Guardian Swiss teams was the one where we lost a match so badly to Mike that he wrote an article about it in Bridge Magazine? I think he had a poorish set at the other table – but our set was so terrible he won a blitz. It was certainly 1977-1979 or so. I think my teammates included David Muller and the article appeared a few months later. Fortunately we weren't named.

He also wrote an article called Bombers Moon which was one of the funnier articles of that period…is it still accessible?
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael
Technically the extraction is not just to prevent a trump promotion but also to prevent you being forced to surrender a ruff to the defender


When you have eg a 6-2 fit with AKQJ109 in dummy and xx in hand and a completely solid trump suit bar the ace –with just one trump in dummy – cashing one before exiting means they must let you get to hand or exit in that suit. when you can ruff the third round back to hand high. With a 6-3 fit in this suit you have to guess whether to play one or two rounds early.
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The alternative is that South should say ‘It was partly my fault – I did agree to play with you, after all.’
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
acci-dental on purpose.
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mark Bartusek preempted me…I'm fairly sure it was Dallas 1997 or so. Maybe just before Kaplan died I sent Jeff Rubens an article for Edgar Kaplan to author which also included the Helgemo intra-finesse, that appeared in that same summary article. I do not recall if Mark gave me the eights hand or he submitted it himself.

Its mid 1997 (May/-July) or so?
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Al Levy, who understands these things far better than me, has a deal that exemplifies one of the problems computers need to tackle. In the later stages of the computer competition at Orlando both computers misses a single-dummy defense to a slam of baring a king in the ending because they ‘knew’ declarer would get it right at double dummy.
BUT according to Al, Yves, who wrote the program for the gold medal winner says this is just a glitch and when the deal was re-submitted it got the defense right.
If this is right, then I think that indicates maybe computers are thinking more like humans when it comes to bridge than in the past.
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Given that my dentist has just recommended I floss using a waterpik I suppose a Frenchman would call it the “What? A Pique?” coup. Maybe it loses a little in the translation.
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank all.
This hand is actually from the WC finals and I switched the suits (hence the initial cock-up). West had in this version
xx
KJ10x
QJ10xx
10x


I leave it up to you to determine if she should have given different Smith but I don't see how the defenders can cash out here – do you?
Declarer needed the double spade finesse to come home after a diamond continuation and was in luck today.
Nov. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bitter experience has taught me that even if we thought we had the suits sufficiently under control occasionally a double from the opponents alerts us to the fact that we are wrong for the purposes of playing a small slam.
So as suggested above, when a relay is doubled ignore the response with a suitable control (shortness or king) and answer as you would have done.
Pass without that and partner redoubles to re-ask. Hence 5 says no TQ and diamonds well controlled. Without the Q pass and when partner redoubles deny the queen. Even though you have the ace a diamond lead might beat six when you are off the Trump queen and they lead a diamond? Not today of course but on another day.
Nov. 11
Barry Rigal edited this comment Nov. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As now noted above in the article – partner follows with the 10 on the second round. Apologies!
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apologies…take another look at the fixed – I hope – version.
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael Rosenberg dropped the king from KJ when I led out the ace and he was sitting over dummy which had Q10xxxx. I guess I was marked not to hold four from the bidding but anyway I had three and finessed against Zia on the second round.
I think he said he had been waiting to make this play for a while.
Nov. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Italian style of using 2C/D as 5-4 and 5-5 majors here might make 2 more attractive than 2?
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When neither hearts nor spade raises look good, temporize with 2D. If I can get past this bid… © Al Roth
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes that 2 is nice (coupled with no big spade spot to the right in some variations).
Nov. 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 99 100 101 102
.

Bottom Home Top