Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 136 137 138 139
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course, this runs the risk of play in a 6-2 diamond fit when you have a 5-5 heart fit.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, how is “intermediate or better” not continuous?
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I left out the word “except”. Fixed now. At IMPs it's fine. At matchpoints or BaM I wouldn't want to give up weak 2 (or whatever other non-strong meaning I might need) just to take the pressure off 2.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think he meant which system applied when, but all the details of each system.

Although in Schapiro's case, one wonders why he didn't try an encrypted system. ;)
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can't imagine having two strong openings except at IMPs.
Jan. 14
Christopher Monsour edited this comment Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I must say I would like to try that version of forcing pass (0-6 or 17+), and I am wondering what you would think of the following structure in 3/4:
1 = negative or game interest opposite 0-6. Now 1 = continued game interest and 1 through 2 are to play with either 0-6 OR a minimal strong hand.
1 = 7+-15 balanced or 3-suited. Opener's 2 is Stayman, and 2M bids are forcing. Pass through 2 are attempts to play there.
Suits 1 through 2 = 5+ cards, to play opposite 0-6, GF opposite 17+
1NT = 16-19 balanced
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Comfortable satisfaction” is a particularly unfortunate turn of phrase, since it appears to refer to gratification on the part of the judges…
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem with XX is you might turn +470 (them not running) into +100 (them running, doubled down one). On this very deal, for example. Or, on a worse misfit, LHO might pass out of desperation (whereas without the XX he might have pulled to a hopeless contract thinking at last he wouldn't be doubled)–and then you may turned +50 into -200.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It may be a maximum, but if it had fewer high card points it might have had a sixth heart, and 2 might be making anyway.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It depends on how they got to 2NT, but encrypted leads would have to be part of it in most of those cases (since we know their HCP within a fairly well defined range), so I would make it the default. So 4th best on hands with fewer than 8 HCP. 3rd and 5th on stronger hands…. (Or maybe the other way around. I haven't given that part much thought.)

As for honor leads, standard (K from AKxx, A from AKQ10x) when leading 3rd/5th, and 10 from any interior sequence (J denies, 9 from a suit headed by the 10) when leading 4th.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, perhaps no judge can be expected to be a technical expert, but an arbiter can. I assume the WBF had to pick from a list of arbiters registered with the CAS for their selection. If not, it's ridiculous they didn't choose someone who was an expert on both law and bridge and statistically literate.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
See my comment above!!!
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Greg, I agree that the ruling would demonstrate a shocking level of incompetence on the part of a panel of judges in, say, a district court. Instead, this was before a panel of arbitrators for *sport*. In other words, to be blunt, meatheads. What did the WBF expect would happen when they agreed to let these guys settle bridge disputes?
Jan. 13
Christopher Monsour edited this comment Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was more concerned with the case when X is a minor. If opener's doubleton could be in any suit, you may well not know whether you belong in 4NT or 6 of responder's minor until the degree of support is clarified. And additionally the hands Ronald pointed out. This seems way more useful than control bidding on the way to a notrump slam.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think they may need to be less worried about spills and more worried about what their opponents might put in their coffee to level the playing field…
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After 1M-2X-3NT, unless 3NT is completely specific as to shape, 4 and 4 need to be natural, not control bids.
Jan. 12
Christopher Monsour edited this comment Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, but Roberts, Sotomayor, etc., generally confine themselves to deciding questions of law and leaving alone decisions by “peers” as to questions of fact!
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is “comfortable satisfaction” more or less strict than “clear and convincing evidence”, which is the standard in fraud suits? If the CAS is interpreting “comfortable satisfaction” as closer to “beyond a reasonable doubt” than a US jury would interpret “clear and convincing evidence”, then perhaps WBF should agree not to sue for fraud convicted cheaters who give up their right to appeal to CAS.

For this to work, they need to vigorously and successfully sue Fantunes for fraud right now, and take them to the cleaners, so the example is there for everyone.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yet another reason not to have 2M promise six.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So if you (sometimes) open 1M with 15-17 balanced, and you want a raise of a minor to promise four, you need to rebid 2M, not NT, with three-card support.
Jan. 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 136 137 138 139
.

Bottom Home Top