Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Barry Rigal
1 2 3 4 ... 82 83 84 85
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
44 votes and counting….what is the record number of votes for one answer before someone broke the chain – and doubtless suffered 10 years bad luck.
May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
See the series on ‘decompression’ in Bridge World by Stefan Ralescu and me.
May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you for bringing this up. The best reason I know for playing it is to confuse opponents as to which your signal is. (all the people I know who do it don't tend to be helpful when you ask about which signal is given in which position – but they seem to know…
And when I played it (once) I had NO idea what was going on and was playing with someone good enough that this shouldn't have been the case.
May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For the record. This might be a hand where playing 3 as an artificial response to the x of 3 lets you bid 3 as constructive.
There is a lot more to it than that of course, but it might start you off on a better track?

Further sequences: using direct jumps as game only, via 3 then 4+ for two suiters game only, via 4 puppet to 4 as one suiter slam tries.
May 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm sure they have you lined up as the substitute ‘Alan’ if one is needed.
May 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
By the way Jon Speelman was a keen bridge player at School and also played some at college.
May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even though I thought (correctly) I knew who I was looking for I did not find them.
Time does not change everyone for the worse.
May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes you do have to tell us. This could be all about how to plan the trump reduction after two rounds of spades see West showing out.

In such a case – since you need East to follow three times in hearts – the play goes SAK and now you need the club finesse. (I don't think you can succeed unless it works).
Another problem is if East is 4-3-2-4 when East can pitch his third heart early if you play on diamonds, or discard his second diamond on the fourth club and defeat the contract or – so long as West saves his K for the ‘right’ moment to thwart declarer generating extra entries to dummy.

What? That wasn't the problem? Well how was I to know?
:)

And by the way I'm not sure what order is right in my problem…I suspect play four rounds of hearts, ruffing in hand. Then play on clubs to ruff a club in hand, then go to A.
May 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought the person who bid 2 on the first deal would bid 3 or 4 on the second. Bidding less…now that's crazy?
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The antiquated methods in play require opener with no shortness to go high or low; there was no midpoint of ‘extras in balanced 12-14’ range. Were a 3 ‘all minimums no void’ to be in use, you could differentiate at the next turn to show hands with no extras but good controls. But it wasn't.
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is possible to do a lot better than most of the methods suggested here and not to learn too many new gadgets.

If you play Rosenkrantz (or reverse Rosenkrantz) then use it here, all calls above 2M are slam tries, and 2-2M-continuations as game tries along the same lines.

Now if you want to add more, use 2M+1 as a puppet to 2M+2, whereupon opener makes a slam try or relays for range/trump support length.
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At least my memory isn't completely shot. Yes I did remember that I submitted the deal…not that I know how to solve the bidding problem.
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Once the TD has been called he should look at the normal meaning of 2 facing a Meckwell double. That would be to indicate a long diamond suit, and West would pass unless West had extreme shape, which he doesn't. If West passes then either North passes and the contract goes down one on the heart ruff. Or North doubles for take-out and collects 100?
Once you deem West has taken advantage of the failure to alert you are surely going to consider the likely unfavorable outcomes for E/W (which might include 2 making by North but in practice as David Burn says you can't easily get there can you?)
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This seems a very familiar hand. I seem to remember it from a WC. Benedicte Cronier bid 3 maybe and she and Sylvie Willard missed slam?
Possibly from a European Open event?
The fact that I vaguely remember it suggests perhaps I reported it to BWS as a problem!
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Better double-squeeze analysts than I can correct my analysis but I think the general point of these double squeezes is that first (as you indicated) you force West to unguard one major. THEN you must cash the winners in that major. So had West unguarded spades to keep hearts you must
take the spade ace.

The general point is a useful piece of strategy for getting the squeeze to bite.
May 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ditto!!
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For the record I agree with Richard about 4 not 3. But that wasn't the question – as to whether 3 set up a forcing pass. I think (hope) everyone would agree 4 would set up a forcing pass over 5.
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks.
Will ask them
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Exactly. On their way to winning the pairs in KC Zach Grossack's partner (A Rimstedt brother) did this to me. The fact that he had had to misguess the play en route to this point didn't make me feel any better about it.
As I recall when Reese wrote it up at the end of Masterplay he didn't like it either!
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, yes, and yes. Pass by West is a reasonable second choice.
May 7
1 2 3 4 ... 82 83 84 85
.

Bottom Home Top