Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Goldfarb
1 2 3 4 ... 10 11 12 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you are playing Axx in hand opposite QTx in dummy, and you lead towards the Q, LHO will nearly always hop with the K if it has it. If you see a low card, play the T.

When you're playing NT and need to knock out an ace, GIB will almost always duck the first round and take the second. It doesn't look for a count signal from its partner.

GIB will almost never underlead honors in the early middlegame. If GIB wins an ace at trick one, and then shifts to a suit where you hold AQ in hand, the K is almost certainly offside. Plan accordingly.
July 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are a half dozen photos in the article, and the two that show smoking are in black-and-white and are obviously old. I don't think that makes it look like lots of smoking happens today.
July 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit seems to be the opposite of King Arthur in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. “One…two…three!” “Five, sire!” “Five!”
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What do you do after 1N-(X)-P-(2any)? It seems like fourth hand nearly always pulls, and the difficulty of competing sensibly when responder could have any strength is why I demand a business XX.
July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Every once in a while, you can go for it based on general strength. I remember a hand that was something like AKx AKQJx KQx xx opposite Qxx xx Axx AKQxx, and we had an auction along these lines:

1 (strong or natural) - 2 (natural, 10+)
2 (5+ hearts, 19+ points) - 3 (natural, denies heart support)
6N (I can't think of a further sensible bid to make, we have 32+ with a source of tricks)
- 7N (Well, if you think you can make 6 opposite 10 HCP, then with my actual 15 you should be able to make 7)

Which as you can see is laydown, 13 top tricks. The opening lead was made; I counted my top tricks, counted them a second time to be sure, and then duly laid it down.

At the other table they had a little misunderstanding about how many clubs were promised on the sequence 2C-3C, and ended in 7, down one when they didn't split.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The article here doesn't say enough about the conditions of contest. “IMP teams” could be knockouts, or it could be victory points; and if victory points it could use the usual ACBL scale where 28 IMPs is a blitz, or it could use the newer scale with decimal VP's where you need 40 to blitz.

I remember a hand in a sectional Swiss where I worked out during the bidding that 6 would be pretty much cold, and 7 would require a finesse. I stopped in 6, the opponents bid 7. Well, the finesse worked, so they gained 13 IMPs instead of losing 17. We won the match by 5 instead of 35. Did the opponents bid a bad grand? No: 7 of those 35 IMPs would have been wasted, if the finesse had been wrong, so they risked only 10 IMPs to gain 13.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From what I read about him, you need to omit those last six words. I remember an article by George Rosenkranz giving a case where he and his partner encountered a hand which fit their system perfectly: Rosenkranz could count 13 ice-cold tricks. So he bid the grand. When they came to compare, Crane said, “We have a loss you can't cover – they bid and made a grand.” Was Crane happy that Rosenkranz could in fact cover it? (The answer is left as an exercise for the reader.)
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I assume you have the hand where the opponents were going to play in a splinter bid, and then when Fredin doubled them they went on to bid and make grand?
July 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, I put it up as a poll and double seems to be a clear winner.
July 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The choice is among bidding on a terrible suit, doubling and very likely getting to a horrible 5 contract, and passing with shape and values. I think that bidding spades seems like the least of evils.
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If declarer is 1=8=3=1 then partner is 5=1=2=5 and might have chosen to bid 4 rather than doubling.
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
All bridge rules (as opposed to Laws) have the invisible final clause, “except when it's right”. That one about the five level, even more so than most.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ah, so you were disclosing correctly and the opponent was improperly pressing for more. That makes more sense, really.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Steve here. Jim's opponent is giving full and proper disclosure.
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is there anyone out there who actually plays Fishbein?
June 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You don't specify in what order declarer ran the black suits. Given that declarer is destroying dummy's entries before knocking out the A, doesn't that mark partner with the K? In which case partner can't have much else, and declarer might well have KQJx. The inference from the play has to be more trustworthy than anything from the bidding.
June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Delayed alerts, given after the auction is over. Not quite the same thing as no alert.
June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At the Dallas NABC in 2014, I held:

AKx
xxx
AKT8x
xx

They were vul, we were not. Partner opened 1, and I bid 2, with the pleasant anticipation of getting to make a picture bid. LHO bid 4, and RHO bid 4. I figured a double couldn't hurt, and to my surprise 4-X was the final contract.

2000 points later, LHO asked why RHO had bid 4 on 7xxx.

“4 is always ace asking.”

That incident has forever colored my view of “4 is always ace asking” but honestly I don't think unjustly so.
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 as multi-meaning with one or more strong options is certainly allowed in the ACBL: see item #1 on the GCC. (I suspect it was written with the intent of allowing “could be short” ‘natural’ 1, but as written it allows Polish Club and related systems. It's not obvious how to allow the one and disallow the other, and I'm not going to spend any mental effort on trying to figure that out.)
June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted “auction 1 is fine, auction two is crazy” but I'm with a lot of the commenters here in that I probably wouldn't choose the 2 bid myself. “Not horrible” would be a better description than “fine”.
May 20
1 2 3 4 ... 10 11 12 13
.

Bottom Home Top