Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Barry Rigal
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
According to my files, (somewhere) Martin Hoffman found an equivalent ‘greatest play’. Will see if I can locate it for you.
April 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please check your gift horse's back molar.
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure I'm reading the comments right; if so apologies… but it does look as if a spade at trick two isn't necessarily going to beat the contract – though it does in theory. Will West play to give his partner a spade ruff – since if his partner does have 8/xx/Jxxxx/AQxxx might he not win the first club and shift (worried that cashing the second club might make his partner think he had two spades?)
Im not sure what is right in theory or practice here.

in our theoretical 1-2-5-5 hand West's ducking the first spade would let declarer draw trump and play clubs to get the spades away again.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ditto to the power of N. I think weird doesn't do it credit. 3 is a raise to 3… I can hear your opponents' mocking laughter from here. Maybe one should combine this with the Fishbein variations where 3NT = take=out double?
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree (4th suit if higher than opener's suit should be forcing so that the partnership can stop in opener's major when responder has limited values via the cuebid).
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes indeed. The perfect is the enemy of the good. And see the result from the other table. Yes, as Frances says 4 by East over 3 would get the slam potential in context plus short hearts across nicely. Not sure how it would go from there but slam for sure.
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like David's idea. If Lear can have his verse then…

Edmund Clerihew Bentley
Admonished his mixologists gently:
"It's really not tricky to make a LimeRickey.
Lime, Syrup and Seltzer: mix gently!
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Above Michael Rosenberg said:

Maybe if you'd both known the 60+ year old ‘Standard’ rule - that ‘if you don’t raise partner's preempt and subsequently double a suit slam, partner should lead his suit' you could have defeated their slam doubled.

I agree; but I happen to know from direct experience that a many-many-times WC who was certainly playing 50 years ago commented when I put that view in print: “I didn't know that was the case and I'm not sure I agree.”
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And who do you think cant count to five; yes my partners would tell you it is me but… I'm not sure what your comment has to do with the price of fish.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And for me re the xx. When I first encountered
P-1C-P-P
x-xx-P-P
??

it occurred to me that my partner was unlikely to have been preempted out of his natural call. That was 1600, but I'm still waiting for a second one, nearly 40 years on.

I hope David Burn will tell his story about this sort of auction when playing with David Price…
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No it applies to responding to opening bids. With
x/Ax/A10xxx/AKJxx I think 2 is the right response to 1. I plan to play diamonds only if partner can introduce the suit. So often partner with AK10xx/Kxxx/Kx/Qx will think he has better support for diamonds than clubs if you bid them first.

You could argue for 2 to 1 with KJ/Qxxxx/AQx/KQx but I'm not going to go down that road.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Advocatus diaboli here:

It might depend a little on what partner thought of you…the excuse in the post mortem ‘It was obvious to shift to clubs because I didn’t overtake' wont get the IMPs back.
The alternative approach of why make partner do something for himself that you can do for him…has a lot going for it.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This auction truly makes no sense; South was prepared to play diamonds with a one suiter that he couldn't open 2/3 on without a heart fit. No sir. 41D must show heart fit and North is an idiot. If we accept that then South can indeed have the key minor honors and have made a bid too good for his partner to understand – which might make it a bad bid.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No Marshall, I have no value judgment on which call is ‘best’. What I meant to say was that 1 would surely have worked well after

1-P-2-2

now opener can bid 3 or 2, (probably 3 best to follow with 3 over 3) and now responder can bid 3NT at his next turn with a very different level of confidence.

I strongly prefer to open better minor with 12-14 but have no strong view on what to do with 18-19 except that with big suit disparity I will surely bid the suit I want to play slam in.

But there isn't room on the net to have THAT discussion…
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd like you to add an answer which may be the one played only by my partnership: light take-out or heavy penalty.

Kxxx/x/Kxxx/Qxxx

OR

AJ/KQ10x/Axxxx/Jx

No doubt there will come a hand where the player sitting opposite can't tell. (Was it SF 1990 Reisinger finals where a player (?Dan Molochko) made a double showing one or five trumps and the oppo – which might have been Ron Smith – passed with huge support to end in 2Mx +3).

But once in 30 years is not a bad hit rate.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jan worked out that the original was:

Norman Kay's
Demeanor at the table was as outstanding as that of Grant Baze
His widow Judy is now married to Bobby
Who writes Bridge with the Aces for a hobby.

When I was about 10 I was introduced by my English teacher to

There was a young Curate of Salisbury
Whose manners were Halisbury-Scalisbury
He went around Hampshire
Without any Pampshire
Till told by his bishop to Walisbury.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are right. Stick with the idea that the characters you mention do indeed appear and the clerihew when edited will rhyme.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pass-2 - to you

Jxxxx
Ax
Axxx
Kx

A
Q10xx
Qx
Qxxxxx

I'm not saying 2 vulnerable facing a passed partner won't work but that's not my idea of a 2 call. If partner doubled to show short diamonds I'd be happy to take a shot at 4, wouldn't you?
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Which city is Margate in?
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At the five-level?
April 20
.

Bottom Home Top