Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Levin
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit, I just did some tests and believe that the following is how to use Bridge Winners tools to do what you describe.

1. Bring up the article composition/edit window.
2. Type some text as you want it to appear, which we'll assume includes the word “Time”.
3. Use the mouse to select the word “Time”.
4. Click the Add/Edit Link icon (possibly not the precise wording) at the top of the composition window, a couple positions to the right of the binoculars icon for “Find”.
5. In the pop-up window, enter the link address in the indicated entry box.
6. The “name” entry box, which I suspect is for linking to one spot in an article from within another spot in the article, can be left blank.
7. Click “OK” or whatever it's called, within the pop-up window.

If the above is inaccurate, I trust that someone will correct me forthwith.
Sept. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Minor typo: Board 6, Schwartz holds xxx Jxx Jxxx 10xx.
Sept. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If South rebids 4 over 2, North might well judge it too risky to take another call holding Kxx=xx=AKQxx=xxx, even though slam is good opposite that hand.

Being that South has only one fast loser between the unbid suits, South might well need to be the one to probe for slam. If North held the hand in this comment, a reasonable (to me at least) auction would be 1-2;2-3;4-4;5-6.

I guess my concern about an undiscussed 3 or 4 as South's first rebid is that such a space-consuming call in a game-forcing auction seems worth considering only if it has been tightly defined by the partnership. I just don't resonate with the apparent urgency for South to show the long, strong suit.
Sept. 3, 2015
David Levin edited this comment Sept. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that the South hand has a lot of playing potential, but if South bids 3 over 2, mightn't North bid 4 holding K xxx AJTxx KQJT? From North's perspective, South is likely to hold the A and a control, or A K, or AK, or AQ. Yet, on South's actual hand, a lead would hold Declarer to 10 tricks. This seems to show that South's hand isn't strong enough to rebid 3 over 2, at least under one of the common interpretations for that sequence.

If South rebids 2 over 2 then North has an easy 3 rebid with the above hand, and the misfit should become evident before the pair has bypassed 4.
Sept. 2, 2015
David Levin edited this comment Sept. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North might have misconstrued 3 over 2 as showing a solid suit and enough to drive to slam. This could have led to a different type of disaster if North had a void. Rebidding 2 seems to me to be risk-free if South follows up reasonably (i.e., cuebidding over 3, as suggested above).
Sept. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I probably won't get to view these videos. But from what posters have described, I am struck by FS's apparent disregard (at best) of the Laws of Duplicate about refraining from mannerisms. Their performance sounds like the envy of any third-base coach.

I would have thought, at least in a less imperfect world, that even without evidence or suspicion that a pair is cheating, such an avalanche of gestures would warrant a warning and a penalty if it's disregarded.
Aug. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Yes, top players can understand that some of your devils advocate points are wrong, and that these hands are not evidence that they are not cheating, but you are a very influential person here and many non expert players will not understand. The truth is you could probably win a bridge debate arguing either side with almost all non expert bridge players.”

Justin, let's suppose you're right, that many of us non-experts can't possibly possess the critical thinking skills to discern flaws in any argument put forth by an expert. This would mean that we are just as receptive to experts who contend that FS has been cheating, whose posts seem to far outnumber those made by experts who contend that FS has not been cheating or who have reserved judgment.

I know of course that it's easier to bring about political change if one can stifle statements that could be construed as not supporting the change, the change in question being the banning of FS from organized bridge. I just don't happen to approve of the tactic.

Disclosure: I came to believe that FS was cheating, even before seeing the five-level support pass deal described in the comments to this article.
Aug. 30, 2015
David Levin edited this comment Aug. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is customary for bridge professionals to furnish on request, names of presumably satisfied clients who've agreed to be references? It would certainly seem to help a prospective client assess the fit.

“And Geoff, I hear you in terms of not wanting to recommend someone you cannot stand up for, but with the danger of sounding a bit harsh; if its your site, your recommendations, its your choice whether you want to add pros (or wannabe pros. And I think it wouldn't hurt to set the bar high in that respect if it means that clients can really trust that they will get something worth their money.”

I imagine that it might require a lot of work to vet a pro who wants to be listed but with whom the matchmaking site administrator has had little to no contact. And Geoff does not sound quite ready to trade his regular job for that of full-time site administrator. 8^)
Aug. 30, 2015
David Levin edited this comment Aug. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was wondering whether you meant to write, "My ‘rule’ for 10 card fits is that the player who COULD have bid cheaply, but didn't, doesn't have the void." (Italics added.)
Aug. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In passing, I found interesting the mention of didactic memory, as I was aware of eidetic memory.
Aug. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lenin would have said, “Justice delayed is justice denied, comrade.”
Aug. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OP: Original Post or Original Poster (according to context)
Aug. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
"Declarer may still–and should–get the hand right, but give him the chance to go wrong." (Italics added.)

This isn't clear to me. Let's say North ruffs at Trick 4 and exits in s. Declarer can cash K (in case this drops an honor from North) and A so as to infer the distribution, but Declarer must then guess whether South holds Qx, Tx, or QT, any of which would seem consistent with the auction and the play thus far. Assuming that Declarer has retained two entries to Dummy, a finesse could then be taken in either direction. Leading toward the AJ would succeed against one more layout (QT with South) than would a backward finesse. Is there some indication for instead playing South for Tx?
Aug. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of Alfred Sheinwold's columns featured a deal that was close to that. Declarer's RHO took the last two tricks with 64 of trump (what the player was dealt) over Dummy's 53 of trump, for down one. Then Declarer's LHO asked why Partner, holding two sure trump tricks, didn't double. Sheinwold ended the column by disclosing that he was the one who said it and that he was a tough partner back then.
Aug. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Of course the problem with a flag system is that far too many people can't distinguish between posts that are genuinely offensive/inappropriate and posts that they vehemently disagree with.”

“Far too many…” = everyone?
Aug. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Deleted: essential points made by others hours earlier (although further down).
Aug. 25, 2015
David Levin edited this comment Aug. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even if North has only one queen in the red suits (rather than one king), slam might not be hopeless (e.g., if North has Qxx Txxxx). If North has 10 or 11 HCP, that ensures at least one red queen or red king. So, maybe South should bid 5 and hope North accepts with 10 or 11 HCP or with great honor placement (by our definition).
Aug. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If a pair doesn't play kickback, cuebidding might suffice: 1-1-2-3-3-3-4-4-4-6-P.
Aug. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For evaluating whether a hand is good enough to open, there are also various adaptations of the Rule of 20 (number of cards in two longest suits + HCP >= 20). But I would suggest that rather than try to identify the theoretically best method for deciding whether to open (assuming there even is one), you select a method you are comfortable with and can apply reasonably quickly.

Here's one example of why you and Partner should use the same criteria for whether to open. Suppose Partner passes as dealer, RHO opens 1N (say, 15-17), and your side is silent for the rest of the auction. Suppose also that at some point in the play, Declarer's honors played thus far sum to 12 HCP, the only “hidden” high cards are the A and the K, you can therefore infer that Declarer holds exactly one of them, and your defense depends on who has which. If you can deduce that holding the A, Partner surely would have opened the bidding, then you can confidently play Partner to hold the K and Declarer to hold the A.
Aug. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But John, this might be our chance to form an alert industrial complex!
Aug. 20, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top