Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Levin
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Two people are conversing…

“I looked for you at the martial arts demonstration.”

“I skipped it because I was sure it would be disappointing.”

“It was. How did you know?”

“I had learned that the boards would be supplied by Fisher Schwartz Lumber.”
Sept. 7, 2015
David Levin edited this comment Sept. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Boye had a ton of material to present. I don't find fault with his opting to present it in phases, just as nonfiction books often consist of parts and of chapters within parts.

Nor do I find fault with Boye's opting to start with an article that explained how his presentation of that material would unfold, just as nonfiction books often include an introductory section or chapter.

Boye's poker metaphor might have been replaced by a statement that less-convincing material would generally appear before more-convincing material. But these two choices of phrasing seem to amount to essentially the same thing.
Sept. 6, 2015
David Levin edited this comment Sept. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Those examples reminded me of how, decades ago, a US sports reporter who had just revealed a major story was asked whether he did sensationalist reporting. He answered that no, he didn't do stories like “Two-Headed Quarterback Sees Elvis.” It still makes me chuckle.
Sept. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps “The True Story” discusses their “partnership agreement”?
Sept. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Timo, how's that you are constrained from inserting in your article the link provided by Wei-Bung?

Edit: What I meant was, “Did you attempt to edit the article, only to receive an error message or other failure indication?” If so, I can't fix it (obviously), but I'd be curious because I haven't experienced that, possibly because the few times I've edited my articles after publication have not coincided with the Bridge Winners site's being heavily accessed.
Sept. 6, 2015
David Levin edited this comment Sept. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Setting aside suit-preference considerations for the moment, if your partnership has agreed that North's play of the Q denies the K (and I infer that South also didn't have that card), that gives Declarer a trick to go with 6 tricks. Then Declarer's critical black suit holdings seem to be the following:

1. If Declarer has 4 s and can establish the suit without loss, South must hope to immediately cash two tricks.
2. If Declarer has 4 s but North holds the A and Q, then the defenders need to immediately attack s (playing East for 4=5=2=2).
3. If Declarer has 4 s and can establish the suit with one loser (to South's K), then an immediate shift by South is necessary if North holds KQ.
4. If Declarer has 4 s and can establish the suit with one loser (to South's K) and North holds the A, then returning any suit except a at Trick Two should work.

Taking into account North's not having played a low to request a switch, case 1 can be eliminated. In the remaining cases, a works at least as well as a (although in case 2, neither works), which seems to indicate that South should shift to a at Trick Two.
Sept. 5, 2015
David Levin edited this comment Sept. 5, 2015
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
.

Bottom Home Top