Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Levin
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“This means the range for 3 is up to game forcing with clubs.”

Unless this pair lacked a 2 bid to show invitational-plus in clubs, the range for 3 seems to be, up to (just below) invitational with clubs.

Added: I'm not saying that this would invalidate concern about the description “weak.”
Jan. 3
David Levin edited this comment Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
?
Jan. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, if you type the following:

[[]Tongue in cheek]

the result should be the following:

[Tongue in cheek]
Jan. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
"Find Where's Wacko?"
Jan. 2
David Levin edited this comment Jan. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Less informative but perhaps easier to remember:

CTB - Critique the bidding
CTD - Critique the defense
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Somewhere among the comments is the clarification that South bid 4 over 3 and that North then bid 5.

To determine whether East's 3 call was an “extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or a gambling action” (as phrased in Law 12C1e), should the director take into account whether that call might have been made or seriously considered by a player in East's class?

I ask because Law 12C1e doesn't say anything about the class of player who took the action that might have been caused in part by the misinformation. Yet, in cases where a player's call might have been influenced by UI, the Laws say that the director should determine whether “a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select” (Law 1B1b).

Chris, I believe you were on the committee that produced the 2017 revision of the Laws. Do you recall any discussion of whether class of player should be taken into account when deciding whether an action taken by the non-offending side was an “extremely serious error…gambling action”?
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“South feels strongly that describing their jump raises as weak is an adequate explanation for their opponents even though there is a history of weak raises with hands which many players would consider to be constructive or better.”

This gives me the impression that the player believes it's appropriate to give less than full disclosure in order to profit from it.
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“…I feel that giving to bridge and supporting bridge, has basically ruined my life.”

That is one of the most disheartening things I've read in a long time.
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can I have a hint (such as which opening lead(s) defeat the contract in the original layout)?
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suspect that John is alluding to a bridge individual event where the player with the lowest score gets stoned to death.
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After the opening lead to the A, spade to the A, club exit to the K, spade to the 9 (pitching a heart), and Q to the A, I believe that Declarer should cross to the Q (which East must duck) and lead another spade (pitching another heart): (1) if East wins the Q and exits with a diamond, South unblocks the J and leads Dummy's last diamond; (2) if East wins the Q, cashes the A, and exits with a diamond, South cashes the K and the last diamond, squeezing West; (3) if West overtakes the Q with the K, the J is established and Declarer seems to have sufficient communication to take nine tricks.
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“First, thank you for your work in promoting youth bridge in England.”

I had no idea that this was being accomplished from Massachusetts.
Dec. 31, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On the third round of spades, what happens if South pitches another heart instead of South's last club?

Added: I just realized that maybe you're crossing to the J to lead the third round of spades, in which case South's pitching another heart permits West to allow Partner to hold the trick, establish a long heart, and cash it after getting in with the A.
Dec. 31, 2019
David Levin edited this comment Dec. 31, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Having hit upon what I believe is the right idea, I'm going to guess that the “minor change” was to swap the 8 (originally with South) with the 7 (originally with North).
Dec. 31, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This exchange seems to be ([on the verge of] getting) personal.
Dec. 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No mention of the contract 6? 8^)
Dec. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Howard,
If the diamond finesse loses, it seems to me that you would need East to hold precisely KJ-tight.
Dec. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Reading this discussion made me realize that I had omitted the paragraph that precedes section I of each “Computer Bridge” article. It's there now. Thanks.
Dec. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a few suggestions for the usbf.org match results pages.

1) On each of the 2019 U26 USBC results pages, provide at least one link to a 2019 U26 USA2 USBC results page.

2) On each of the 2019 U26 USA2 USBC results pages, provide at least one link to a 2019 U26 USBC results page.

3) On the 2019 U16 USBC results pages, present the team VP totals in a list that's distinct from the match results, instead of embedding the VP totals in the match results (which momentarily baffled me).
Dec. 29, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top