Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Levin
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 149 150 151 152
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If we credit West with Ax to go with A-fifth or -sixth, West's also holding the K would seem inconsistent with opening 2. So, although I agree that failing to capture the K would be remarkable, rising wouldn't set the contract by force.
23 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am proposing a many-suit-layouts-possible catalog, which seems a far cry from an all-hands-possible catalog.

Added: The last few pages of the article discuss how the catalog might summarize the prospects and risks offered by a single-dummy card-combination, information that human players routinely use. Robot would probe the depths of possibilities only when it seems necessary. I plan to define “only when it seems necessary” in future.
4 hours ago
David Levin edited this comment 4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I understand why “rewarding,” but why “frustrating”?
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“(Deleted — it was probably dumb)”

But would the time until others realized it have exceeded the Andy threshold of 59 minutes?
11 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nontransitive relationships can occur in chess also, as in Q&N > Q&B > R&B&B > Q&N.
12 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's toggled by the icon that has “ABC” overlapping a check mark.
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Having thought of a construction before seeing Stephen's reply, I figured I'd post it.

Dummy: xxx=KT6x=Ax=KQxx
Declarer: xx=A95xx=KQxx=Ax

Declarer had opened 1, LHO had overcalled 1, and the final contract became either 4 or 5.

The defense starts by cashing two spades and leading a third round, ruffed by Declarer. In 5, Declarer can't afford a safety play in trumps and therefore must start with the ace or king. But in 4, Declarer can afford to lead a trump toward the ten, which succeeds so long as RHO can't win and give Partner a ruff. But on this deal, RHO started with Hx and a seven-card minor.

(Last paragraph, second sentence edited.)
Jan. 14
David Levin edited this comment Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To make your email address less prone to being “harvested” from your comment, you might edit it to replace “@” with “ at ”.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Using a browser's “Find,” I got different results: one article matching “game try” and six articles matching “negative double”. (I'm not disputing that it would be handy to be able to search for keywords that appear in an article's text even if they're not in the title.)
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Although the heart shift in that sequence seems most accurate and would effect a two-trick set, continuing spades without the heart shift seems to just beat 3N, provided that South withholds the 10 until the fourth round of the suit.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see that it's been fixed.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Page 9, the second sentence is confusing (as Dummy still has the K).
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Page 8, "If East started with AJ10 doubleton of hearts".
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True, but I believe that blockage can occur only if South led from A-fifth or -sixth, and this has to be weighed against the possibility of South's misguessing with that holding.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If Partner was dealt the A and J983, then it seems to me that (1) Partner's leading the 3 sets the contract whenever leading the 9 would have done, and (2) Partner has the information to realize this.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If Partner held J98x, cashing the A (which seems marked) before continuing hearts would have “forced” me to take the A.

Added a minute later: this is valid only if Partner can infer (or must assume) that I hold the A rather than the K.
Jan. 12
David Levin edited this comment Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It now seems to me that although South might bid 4 with a hand that would make the five-level unsafe, North shouldn't cater to such a hand. I'm not sold on North's committing to the six-level unilaterally (as by bidding 6 over 4), but North certainly owes Partner a bid over 4.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Game seems good opposite as little as Axxx Kxxx x Axxx.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would those who would drive to slam over 4 not have made that call if sitting South and holding say, Jxxxxx Qx Qxx Kx?
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Still yellow chicken” seems redundant.
Jan. 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 149 150 151 152
.

Bottom Home Top