Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Levin
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed, how reckless of us readers to infer that a poster actually means what (s)he writes.
March 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Declarer's play at Trick 1 of the 3 from Dummy and the Q from the closed hand was apparently meant to conceal from West the J. I'd have thought it more useful to conceal from East Declarer's intent by “ducking high” in Dummy at Trick 1, especially if Declarer wanted to try to induce East to rise.
March 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But I didn't see mentioned earlier that if East was dealt Hx, leading the suit once from dummy will suffice to establish a second trick. Leading the K early, with the fallback (if the K is ducked) of leading the T and letting it ride, therefore seems to work in most layouts.
March 10, 2016
David Levin edited this comment March 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was hoping that someone on the NZBB was named, “Shaw.”
March 8, 2016
David Levin edited this comment March 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After the opening lead of T to the A, I'm not seeing how Declarer gets home by playing a to the Q and A. South plays a to North, North leads another high (presumably ruffed by Declarer and overruffed by South), South exits with a , and Dummy lacks the entries to both establish the long s and cash them.

But I think Declarer makes by ducking the opening lead, thereby preventing South's overruff. Was this the line you (Gregory) had in mind?
March 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps South judged it more likely that Declarer was about to set up a winner for a discard, than that Dummy would have a short enough trump holding for a lead to make a dent.
March 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But this auction seems to constitute “jumping to slam.” 8^)
March 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
'It's impossible to simultaneously “agree with N”s action with or without UI“ and believe one has ”a pretty good case that an alternative and less successful action can be forced upon".'

If West believed that he and North are among the few bridge players of their class who would have taken North's action with or without UI. then West would also have reason to think that calling for a director would likely result in an adjustment favorable to East/West. So then, is it West's ethical obligation to call for a director, or is it not to call for a director?
March 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ACBL Law of Duplicate 10C4 states, “Subject to Law 16D2, after rectification of an infraction, it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 50).”

Although this doesn't seem to directly address your comment, it does suggest that the offending side should try to obtain the best possible result given the constraints of the Laws and what has transpired at the table.

Edit of March 3, 2016: I had misread your comment but would infer from what I typed above, that it is appropriate also for the non-offending side to try to obtain the best possible result given the constraints of the Laws and what has transpired at the table.
March 3, 2016
David Levin edited this comment March 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Or I might have done what's usually wisest and said nothing.”

Nah. It's like when someone said he probably shouldn't be questioning analysis you had posted, and you replied that of course he should, because the resulting discussion is bound to benefit at least one person.
March 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I second that. And discovering that a certain unusual discard was necessary, was especially pleasing.
March 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do too. I don't see how rising at Trick 1 ever does better than ducking. West's K might have been from K9x if (s)he didn't want to block the suit, appear to be leading top of nothing, or allow the possibility of a stiff honor in South's hand to draw an honor this early from East.

The most plausible layout to account for the opponents' bidding on 15 HCP seems to be West 4=3=1=5 and East 2=5=3=3, with East's having upgraded a holding such as QT8xx that's behind the takeout doubler. My plan is to duck twice, take the A at Trick 3, and lead the Q. If West wins the first and returns a (which would deny me the chance to see the signaling on a lead or to play a third round of s to ascertain whether West was dealt six of them), then I'll probably cash the K and lead the 9, unless the carding seems to suggest otherwise.
March 2, 2016
David Levin edited this comment March 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps Paul was questioning the “like FS” part of Lars's statement. If Lars didn't intend “like FS” as a premise, then his post doesn't seem to contain much substance.
March 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“It is merely a coincidence that the ACBL and EBU give a list of 20-something agreements that their authority agrees that it won't stop you from doing (while perhaps not disparaging others), whereas the WBF makes a list of about 10 things that it thinks will destroy the game, if too widely permitted?”

I'm inclined to attribute this to the following: (1) devising criteria for what agreements to allow requires a lot more thought than listing taboos; (2) organizations that directly regulate bridge contests need to devise such criteria; and (3) organizations that regulate regulating organizations can often avoid having to devise such criteria.
March 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cute title.
Feb. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It contrasts with a Partnership Understanding Regularly Revealed (PURR).
Feb. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Per Law 22,

Auction Period = Auction + Clarification Period.
Feb. 27, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On many other threads, posters have noted the extent to which players at club level engage in extralegal communication during an auction. I wonder whether getting away with this makes people less receptive toward unfamiliar conventions than they might otherwise be.
Feb. 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the definition of Clear and Convincing Evidence, perhaps a comma should be inserted after “untrue.”
Feb. 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wasn't sure if there was anything in this partnership's agreements that would lead North to think that a misinterpretation of the 3 call by South would be that it was competitive. Setting this aside, I agree that 3 natural needs to be a real hand (as you put it).
Feb. 25, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top