Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Charles Blair
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.
I have learned some things I did not previously know about addiction, and hope I did not offend too many people by starting this thread.
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My apologies! I overlooked the “in ---” when I complained about the text.
Aug. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My thanks that the title has been changed, although the text still refers to “4-4-3-2,” not 4=4=3=2".
Aug. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Am I the only one who misread the question? I thought it was about what you open with 4-4 in the minors. I think Richard Pavlicek recommends using equals signs (4=4=3=2) when specific suits are intended.
Aug. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think I'm not the only one in this thread that reserves the immediate raise on three trumps for better-than-minimum hands.
Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know “Meckwell Precision” (did they ever write a book?), but couldn't a 2 rebid be 1=4=3=5 ? When I posted this, I thought it was clear without explicit statement that a strong-club system was not being used.
Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I pass at imps. At matchpoints, I bid 2 over 2. It may be a bad result, but partner has a better picture of my hand than if I had bid 2 instead of 2.
Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you for the “nicely phrased.” So far, this poll has had many fewer “other” and “abstain” responses than I usually get. :)
Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I seem to have been misguided in multiple ways. Sorry I wasted everyone's time.
Aug. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This might be a more interesting problem at IMP scoring
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you!
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry: I think doubledummy engines help declarer more than the defense in 7NT compared to other contracts, partly because the opening lead is less of an issue, partly because the defense never has to find the right shift at a later stage. In this particular hand, the engine will show a profit just about any time the defenders have the queen of spades. BTW, the six-card problem composer was Whitfeld, not Whitfield (see ACBL encyclopedia)

To whom it may concern: the tenace program I mentioned earlier (Christoph Berg for linux systems) uses Haglund's DDS, for which nobody claims to have found a bug.
July 2
Charles Blair edited this comment July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I just tried the “tenace” doubledummy solver (linux system) on a simple one-suit squeeze: 6NT with opening leader KJ102, partner 9, declarer AQ8 and ten winners in the other suits. It worked.

I've toyed with writing my own double-dummy program. Does anyone know a data structure which is good at exploiting increasing number of cards in a suit becoming equals later in the deal?
July 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought that, for a given deal, strain, and number of desired tricks, the outcomes would be either success or failure
and all double-dummy engines would agree. I would be interested in seeing a complete deal on which different engines give different answers.
July 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think a double-dummy engine exaggerates the success probability for 7NT. For example, if SQ is missing, declarer always picks it up. Similarly if opening leader has C Jxxx.
July 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm quite sure this is outside USA mainstream practice. Don't know about UK.
July 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The advice about ace-asking being to avoid slams, not to bid them, is very good, but I have seen this credited to Oswald Jacoby.
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This seems to me a theory vs practice issue. I agree with other posters who suggested that 4C over opener's 2NT rebid was a safe way to avoid misunderstandings in almost all partnerships. With most of the people I encounter at the local club, I would be afraid that a 4C bid at this point could cost either through misunderstanding or (less likely) helping the defense, and would bid 7NT now. If I am sure 4C would be treated as Gerber, than I bid it. Another thing to worry about: many local players could have a hand like S KQx H KQ D KQJ10xx C AJ. If you are 100% confident that your partner would not do this, maybe we could make a trade.
June 30
Charles Blair edited this comment June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, everyone. I've actually learned something today.
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The specific options I put forward are variants of what I presently like to play in a method with 1NT 15-17 and “2/1 GF unless suit rebid”. I did not want to get into a debate on the merits, but,
since my personal preface is that opener usually rebids with
5-3-3-2 hands, it seems this is best described as “forcing” rather than
“semi-forcing”.

The K-S updated section of www.bridgeworld.com says that one of major - two of minor could be just a solid or semi-solid suit with the ace, no outside strength, but is usually 12+ points. Two-heart response to one-spade is somewhat weaker.
April 28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 15 16 17
.

Bottom Home Top