Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Bill Kilmer
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 15 16 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Multi-Landy
Nov. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
X = forces Exclusion Principle for any Maj/Min 2-suiter at least 5-4
2♣ = Majors, at least 5-4
2♦ = 6-card Transfer to ♥s
2♥ = 6-card Transfer to ♠s
2♠ = 5-4/5-5 Minors; 2NT is you pick, 3♣/♦ is to play
2NT = 7card Transfer to ♣s
3♣ = 7 card Transfer to ♦s
3♦ = 7 card Transfer to ♥s
3♥ = 7 card Transfer to ♠s
3♠ = Lots of Minors; 3NT is you pick, 4♣/♦ is to play
3NT = to play; Running suit and a Major stopper
4♣/♦ = invites sacrifice
4♥/♠ = to play
4NT = Any Freak 2-suiter w/controls
5♣/♦ = to play
Nov. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve Goldstein from Philly?
Sept. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was simply trying to lift your bewilderment, Ed. You did mentioning being naive.

I neither praised, nor attempted to negate their contributions Bidding Theory. In fact, I happen to use many odd their principles my own systems.

We good?
Sept. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you psyche something often enough, or shade certain bids often enough, it is now your methods, and should be on your CC and disclosed. Or be penalized as is defined in the Laws.

Put another way, you can't call it “judgement” if you do it frequently and partner knows you (both) do it frequently. It's an agreement. Non-disclosure of agreements is simply illegal, as is already defined by the Laws.

Therefore, it's not the “choose the competitive method based on their opponents' agreements” pair gumming the works, but the “we'll only really tell them PART of our agreement and bid outside that description often” pair at fault here.

In addition, in a Competitive auction discovery of methods, the initial bidders must first choose a method, disclose it, and play it, even if they must choose that method based on differing agreements the opposing bidder would use based on the initial bidders eventual choice.

Therefore, the initial bidders' can look first, but must choose an agreement first. The opposing bidders must then use what they pre-agreed on for said opponents' agreement.

Both sides must do this each way before ever touching a board.

I can't think of a fairer way.
Sept. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed Judy- because at least 2 Italian pairs have been convicted of cheating, and several others have STRONG evidence against them, but mostly in the 50s-70s.
Sept. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I passed initially.

I REALLY passed when you later added your partnership's tempo breaks.

As per usual, you tried to talk yourself into something you shouldn't by engaging in endless analysis and re-re-re-evaluating your hand until it fits what you want it to, instead of A) just bidding what's been agreed and/or good bridge, and B) following the Active Ethics part of our game.

Inference taken or not, you're simply not allowed take anything but PATENTLY OBVIOUS action to almost every single expert after a BIT, especially when YOU'VE BID YOUR HAND ALREADY. Which you did. As did your P, but with added opportunity for ILLEGAL inference due to BIT.

Your opponents can bid soundly or unsoundly, as long as they do it ethically. I know you: you felt pushed around and you tried to figure a way to combat that, that was BOTH unsound AND unethical.

The director call was warranted. You deserved your adjustment. The PP would maybe be warranted if you've done this before. I'm betting you have, as I have partnered you some.

As to why you're disliked, either they've told you why, justified or not, or they haven't, and maybe you could suss their logic, again, justified or not. You haven't said why, yet, only that “it was known”.

I hope you find this constructive, as it was meant to be. I just see you continue to suffer, and to remove yourself from live play, mostly from what I can tell is you tilting at windmills and not liking when the tall building minding its own business knocks you down.
Sept. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
UPH: Soloway

PH: Fit-showing raise
Sept. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 = Majors preempt, at least 5/4, 6-10
2 = Flannery, I suppose
2 = preempt

But only because I'm saddled with 2/1GF, 5cd Majs, and a strong NT
Sept. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, the whole point of the master suit is that you control the level without the risk of a higher level.
Sept. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sometimes I think we could partner, like here. Others…
Sept. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this lengthening discussion is only demonstrating that the issue is at best *unclear*. To my mind, that's enough to consider it unethical, and despite the rules, I'm not playing it.
March 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry -

1) You're the one who said 2 was NF, not me. I play it forcing for 1 round.

2) I didn't say I didn't play it due to effectiveness; I said I don't play it because I find it to be unethical. I clearly stated that. And yes, I find it effective and common.

3) If my opinion is to be singular, won't it stand out on its own? I guess what I'm asking is why point out my opinion at all? Are you trying to belittle me for having my own opinion, be it singular or not?

(Edited for expansion)
March 7, 2018
Bill Kilmer edited this comment March 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's a legal psychic control. I won't play it for ethical reasons, anymore. Plus, I've found the natural bid to be more valuable.
March 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I feel like P fixed us out of 6, but what am I to do?
March 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I Abstain on 2 counts: 1) I will always respond 1H 2) I suspect that P should have opened 1S with a similarly shaped hand.
March 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fantunes cheated on opening leads. No evidence they cheated anywhere else. Bad enough, but one shouldn't discount a very viable system due to their transgressions in play.
March 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like John Adams's structure
March 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If it makes a difference David, assume the lowest spots possible. I generally thought that what was meant by xxx, for if I had significant spots to show, I would've.
Feb. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought the side by side compare and contrast was useful, especially with so little being different between the hands. I didn't realize this broke rules or convention, or was a hardship or something.
Feb. 24, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 15 16 17
.

Bottom Home Top