Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Danny Kleinman
1 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
See Tri-Color Two Diamonds (December 1998 Bridge World) for a simpler way to combine 2C and 2D for use as powerhouse openings. Eventually I dropped 2D-2H; 2S as a prelude to showing strong 4441 hands to facilitate 2D-2S as an artificial positive response. Once at a national tournament my partner and I had these 2D openings on three consecutive deals.
Oct. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Different strokes for different folks. For everyone: (concurring with Kit Woolsey) be willing to preempt to the hilt, getting your suits in before the opponents can show theirs. For experts with good memories: work out your own ideas and play what you think is optimal. My own idea was already stated here a couple of years ago (“Six-Shooter”). However, when I tried to teach it to partners who have difficulty remembering conventions, I failed. The memory burden was just too much. One defense against notrumps, another defense against Strong Club and Negative Diamond response, a third defense against Nebulous One Diamond. Fine for pros, terrible for clients. 65 years ago I could buy socks that fit my feet (e.g. size 11). No more. Now it's only ill-fitting socks (“fits shoe sizes 9-12”). Same with defenses against opposing openings that do not promise specific suits. Why not have one defense that is reasonable (though not optimal) against all? That will be the topic of a Bridge World article (I hope, soon). Like the socks that fit only approximately.
Aug. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice to play a double as whatever you'd like to have available for your present hand. Last time I doubled as opener in this sequence I had five hearts, but my partner, trained by others to treat all doubles as takeout, pulled and we got too high in another strain. Worse still, a client several years ago passed my forcing pass after my RHO saved in 7D over his vul 6S. We collected a 350-point penalty. He told me that his previous pro had taught him that all doubles were takeout and he feared that if he doubled 7D I would take it as offering a choice among 7H, 7S and 7NT.
June 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2NT is easier than 3D for an opponent to double for penalties, thus triggering penalty doubles of the runout to 3D. After a “Weak Must Speak” 2NT, partner can often cooperate … or you can compete to 3D. After a “bad” 2NT, partner cannot compete over 3H even with a fine fit for diamonds because he must worry that you have clubs. So if you feel you “must” compete with suits and shape despite the lack of extra strength, the better way is to make the artificial bid (2NT) the stronger of the two.

The full treatment of “Weak Must Speak” (look up the Bridge World article) uses 3C as clubs with strength, and 2NT as either weak with clubs or strong with any of the other suits, which is optimal for technical reasons.
May 31, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Using standard methods, you must pass. Playing “Good-Bad” 2NT, you should bid 2NT, showing an unspecified minor suit with limited high-card strength. Playing the superior “Weak Must Speak,” you should bid 3D, showing a limited hand with diamonds.
May 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you, Neal, for the correction.
Sept. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dear Rich,

In a well-directed game, where utilization of unauthorized information were not tolerated, querying alerted calls should be routine. The simple reason is that it's desirable to be aware at all times of what's going on in the auction. If you are, then you'll have no need for telltale huddles later (for example, deciding whether to make a risky Lightner Double if your partner will be on lead against a slam, as you'll have started thinking about it well in advance.

However, there's a complex reason. A bid may be alerted for any number of reasons: (a) because it is artificial, saying nothing about the suit named; (b) because it says something about the strength of the bidder's hand (“we have two ways of showing spades, of which this is the weaker”);©because it sends a compound message (“this shows diamonds AND HEARTS” or “this shows clubs AND AN UNSPECIFIED major”);(d) because it is systematically ambiguous (“this shows either hearts or both black suits”). Depending on what the alerted bid means, the next player may want to bid, make a lead-directing double, or pass. Suppose he inquires ONLY WHEN CONTEMPLATING ACTION, perhaps intending to make a lead-directing double only in Case (a)or (d). He may find out that (b) or © is the case, and then he'll pass. Then his inquire-and-pass conveys unauthorized information. His pass WITHOUT INQUIRING also conveys unauthorized information, namely that he would not contemplate bidding or doubling NO MATTER WHAT the alerted bid showed.

What annoys me is to have players inquire about UNALERTED bids, which in the absence of an alert must be natural and standard. Such inquiries can be, and are, used to show values in the suit without need to make risky doubles.
Sept. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When used as the only forcing opening, 2C is overburdened. The two hand types for which an Omnibus 2C works poorly are balanced game-forcing hands (2C-then-3NT derails Jacoby Transfers and Stayman on game hands, though “Kokish” mitigates this at some cost)and hands whose main suit is diamonds (2C-then-3D is an awkward start and can wrong-side diamond contracts). So devote a strong 2D opening to such hands.
Aug. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When Howard Cosell hosted Monday Night Football on television, he would announce the lineups and state the colleges for which each player had played. When he announced Otis Sistrunk, he said “from the University of Mars.” So I propose the Sistrunk Rule. If Otis Sistrunk played bridge with his classmates, would they understand a call without need for explanation? If not, it's alertable.
Aug. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First, be willing to jump to three of a suit with a hand on which you'd make a Weak Single-Jump overcall. For other hands: double shows the suit doubled, one of a suit natural (if there's any preempting to do, advancer can jump raise). Bids from 1NT through 2NT show two-suiters using a scheme I call Six-Shooter:
2NT shows minors.
2S, 2H and 2D show spades and another suit (2S shows blacks)
2C and 1NT show the next suit up and hearts.
Aug. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe, Barry, he considers that your writing is already so polished that the lifting will be light. Or maybe he trusts me to polish almost as well as he does. I compare my work in directing the MSC to that of a sculptor working in stone rather than clay, chiseling away until it takes its final form. No second drafts (though my articles have often been second drafts) for the MSC, just Jeff's editing and my corrections to his editing when it doesn't quite strike me as right.
Feb. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, I agree with you quite thoroughly. Usually (though not always) Jeff's editing did improve what I wrote, and The Secrets of Winning Bridge is excellent (my second favorite bridge book after Why You Lose at Bridge). It's rare, however, for writing to flow effortlessly without polishing. I can only imagine that Kaplan and Sheinwold had this gift, but I know someone who did: Barclay Cooke, whose handwritten letters to me read just as smoothly as his (well-edited) backgammon book Paradoxes and Probabilities. Jeff rates at the top as a writer and editor, but I attribute this to WORK.
Feb. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a staff member and frequent contributor to The Bridge World, I have a different perspective from those who have commented in this discussion, and I'll share my views here.

I will not comment about what kinds of content and features the magazine should have. A story will illustrate why. Many years ago, I telephoned the then syndicated columnist Alfred Sheinwold to compliment him on his latest column in the Los Angeles Times. Freddie reacted with disappointment verging on anger: “I'm sorry you liked it. I made a mistake in writing it, as the readers for whom I intended it will not appreciate it if you did.”

Freddie, like his former bridge partner Edgar Kaplan, was a “natural” at writing. I am not, and neither, I suspect, is Jeff Rubens, whose polished prose is the result of, well, polishing. Jeff is highly perfectionistic, and in some instances, he asks contributors to rewrite the articles they submit. Once, I complained to Jeff about an article I had to rewrite twice. He replied that an article scheduled to appear along with mine required ten rewrites by the author.

Some suggestions as to which bridge experts might be added to The Bridge World's staff are misguided because what we see in the magazine is the final result of Jeff's editing. You should see how badly some experts write. I know how hard I work to turn some of my panelists' comments into coherent prose, and I imagine Jeff has to work equally hard. Yes, some panelists know how to write (who could complain about Frank Stewart's, Kit Woolsey's or Eric Kokish's mastery of English, for example?), but they are in the minority, and sadly, like Jeff, they are almost as old as I am and I must fear they will not be with us as long as I'd like.

Some commenters on Bridge Winners scoffed at the continued participation of Carl Hudecek in the Master Solvers' Club; one hinted that Carl's bidding is antiquated. That may be so, but it doesn't make his bidding wrong. Old-fashioned isn't better than new-fangled per se. Though I've never met the man, I not only like and respect Carl, but I especially value his comments, even when I disagree vehemently, because they often reflect a distinctive viewpoint. Carl is one of the panelists I would most regret losing.

One commenter on Bridge Winners, as did several Bridge World readers at the time, objected vehemently to one of my Master Solvers' Club directorships in which my scoring of answers was substantially out of whack with the votes of the panel. Yes indeed, I had failed to hew closely to that vote; my fault, for underestimating the importance of the MSC as a bidding contest for readers. Soon I remedied that, so that the scores no longer reflected my sometimes idiosyncratic appraisals of the answers. I'm not sure I was right to change my scoring method, however, as downgrading imaginative and insightful answers strikes me as unjust to “lone wolf” panelists.

Rick Nelson was right: you can't please everyone. Witness the dislike of my friend Nick Straguzzi's brand of humor by one Bridge Winners commenter; others like Chthonic better than anything else in The Bridge World, and one of my bridge partners says she wants to bear his son.

I believe Jeff Rubens wants to please Bridge World readers (“It's your magazine!”), however. Jeff is as open-minded and fair-minded as anyone I know. He will welcome suggestions for the magazine, but appraise them according to his own lights. Though I am incompetent to appraise business decisions, I get a sense that many who bothered to comment on Bridge Winners would like to see “You Be the Judge” resurrected, and I shall suggest that to Jeff.





Feb. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No reading of Passell's intention at the time of the fouled board should be necessary. Indeed, I do not see how anyone could have known his intention with any confidence. However, once informed of Passell's actions, the director had a simple remedy: reconstruct the deal with the correct E/W hands and determine the most favorable plausible result for N/S at the other table. Assign an adjusted score, just as one might do in the case of a failure to alert, or misinformation about the meaning of one's partner's call. The unfavorable adjusted result serves as a deterrent to deliberately fouling a board and provides an incentive to take care not to foul a board inadvertently. Should a procedural penalty have been tacked on as well? Not if the opposing pair also failed to call the director upon noticing the fallen card.

I'm amused that political considerations arose in the discussion (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian). Even more extreme political differences (such as those between pro-capitalists and pro-communists) than those can be bridged with a bit of intelligence: combine the egalitarian ideals of communism (reading Marx and Engels would convince you of their good intentions) with kind and sensible mechanisms of achieving them (incentives and deterrents) and you get (at last) a workable economic system. There is likewise a workable way to formulate and enforce the laws and ethics of bridge. Pursue the goal of “restoring equity” by providing deterrents and incentives, and you sidestep any need to answer the often unanswerable questions “What was his INTENTION?” and “What WOULD HAVE happened in the absence of the irregularity or offense?”
Aug. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I first heard of Sam Hayakawa about 60 years ago when he was a university professor known widely for his book on Semantics, “Language in Thought and Action.” Some 25 years later, when he was a US Senator, in a debate about “returning” the Panama Canal to Panama, Sam said, “We stole it fair and square, we should be allowed to keep it.”
I never discovered whether Senator Sam was being sincere (my best guess, as Republican politicians usually are) or ironic (as any semantically aware person would be). So in the bold tradition of Senator Sam I now say, of Cokin and Sion, the Italian Racecars, their predecessors Zucchini and Machete, Reese and Schapiro, the pre-War Austrian Team whose unerring opening leads S.J. Simon (who was certainly semantically aware) facetiously admired:
“They cheated fair and square, they should be allowed to keep their titles.” After all, if cheaters are stripped of their booty, it will hardly be worth the effort for them to cheat at all.
Jan. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations, Bill, on picking a good acronym!
April 8, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let's see what you and I can come up with that is better, Bill. Here's a start: UM (coincidentally, the card that I most often observe to be called by opposing declarers from dummy at Trick 1) doubles, but here an acronym for “Unbid Major” doubles and also a reminder that what we used to call Negative doubles also meant, “Um, I really don't what else to do with this hand.” I see one flaw in calling them “UM” doubles: the acronym doesn't apply to 1S-2H-double and other doubles when there is no unbid major.
April 8, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm with you again, Bill, in preferring descriptive names for conventions. Trouble is, “Responder's Takeout Double” doesn't describe the convention well, as it doesn't suggest that 1D-1S-double promises four (or more) hearts but says nothing about support for clubs, or than 1C-1D double promises both majors. So, alas, sometimes no descriptive name is apt.
April 8, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One more plus side to Goren (or Culbertson), David, which is better learned without even such commonplace conventions as Stayman, Jacoby Transfers and Blackwood. Other methods can be defined in terms of the simple natural bids of Goren (but the opposite is not true). So the best way to teach beginners is to start with Goren, then introduce some favored conventions by defining them in terms of what natural bids they replace and justifying them by saying what is gained and what is lost by such replacement.
April 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Al Roth, introducing this convention (originated 20 years earlier by Lou Scharf of the Bronx) in 1957 called Negative Doubles “Sputnik” a better (because not misleading) name for them. I'm with you, Bill: let's restore that name!
April 6, 2013
1 2
.

Bottom Home Top