Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Goldfarb
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13 14 15 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The twice a week game at the Tracy Gee Community Center was $2 when I was starting out in 2011, and then went up to $3, where it's been for a few years now. Still pretty cheap.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Okay, I'll bite: what's #1? “Winning Suit Contract Leads”?
May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Everyone local that I have asked thinks that 4 would show shortness. One person even said it had to be a void.
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With one partner, I play almost exactly that, except it's the jump shift in the other minor rather than the jump shift in spades.
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I'm reading the above correctly, a 4 opening is preemptive, a 4 response to a 1 opening is Minorwood.
May 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Vulnerable with a poor suit and a side void, I wouldn't choose 3, but I wouldn't be very angry with a partner who did.

5 now seems like a call with quite a few potential upsides. It isn't ironclad, but very little in bridge ever is.
May 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I definitely like “Square Deal”.
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The link takes me to an article where the bridge content is completely unreadable. Why not link to the article here? https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/sidney-lazards-great-coup/
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted for West being a bot, on the basis that a bot, analyzing double dummy simulations, would assume that East would automatically find its side entry and so not need to overtake.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The bots do not see all four hands. They have their ideas of what bids should mean, and they run simulations based on that. They evaluate the simulations using a fast double-dummy solver, which often leads to some oddities compared to how humans do things. But they don't actually play double-dummy.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You're a little late to the party on that one. :-)
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's “thou” not “thee”: “thou” is the subjective case and “thee” is the objective. Also “sayeth” is a third person form, and not correct with a second person pronoun. It should be “sayest”. Lastly, “thou” is singular – when you write “what sayest thou” you imagine addressing each one of your readers individually. Since you're addressing a group, the plural “What say you?” seems better to me.
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We were indeed playing 12-14 NT. It's also our style both: to treat 5-4-2-2 as unbalanced when at all reasonable; and to open 1D and rebid 2C pretty freely on 4=5 in the minors.
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The other hands were:

974
AQJT5
J875
K
K2
K6
AT32
AT963

So playing a club was the winning defense. I'm glad to see that my spade got at least a reasonable share of the votes.
April 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Call me pessimistic, but if opener has a minimum hand with club wastage then we lack 5-level safety. E.g.: KJxxx xxx x AKJx. So I'm going to just splinter rather than barge straight into Exclusion. If partner control bids a red suit, I'll follow up with a void-showing 5.
April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Heavy focus on scholastic tournaments during the last quarter century.
April 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a couple of partners with whom I play 1NT 12-14, where we have the agreement that X on this auction is a balanced 15+ (that doesn't necessarily promise a stopper in the enemy suit) while 2NT is 16-19 HCP and a decent 6-card diamond suit, and 3D is just about exactly this hand. It doesn't come up often, and memory is a problem.
March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Given that there was no jump bid in the auction, how is even 10 seconds not a break in tempo?
March 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A couple of other robot quirks I've noticed:

The robots will nearly always cover an honor with an honor. If you have a two-way finesse for a queen, the old trick of leading the jack, planning to go up and finesse the other way if it's not covered, is extremely effective. However, do it early in the hand: late in a hand when the robot knows a lot more about the distribution, it's less apt to cover.

The robots hate to underlead honors in the middlegame as well as opening lead. If you hold AQx of a suit and the robot on your right leads that suit, assume that the king is wrong. (Again: late in the hand this is less true.)
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am pretty sure that you are in fact suffering from confirmation bias, and that the bots do in fact randomize.
March 15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13 14 15 16
.

Bottom Home Top