Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Levin
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South's decision might be influenced by whether 2 was unlimited and whether it could be bid with longer than 5=5. Either would buttress the case for not giving West another chance to call.
Dec. 24, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tracy, I believe that you can fix it until 24 hours have elapsed since “publishing” the article. Look for an “Edit” button in the right column when you view this page while logged in.
Dec. 24, 2019
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I find odd that this article never made “trending.”
Dec. 24, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I recall this having been mentioned at Bridge Winners.
Dec. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the teams are of comparable skill, the situation is analogous to being behind 77 IMPs with 28 boards to go. Improbable comebacks even in national team trials have sometimes been achieved by the underdogs' consciously selecting slightly less favored choices in close decisions.

(Added: The above is largely redundant with Marty's #6, which beat me by about eight minutes.)
Dec. 19, 2019
David Levin edited this comment Dec. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Reading the entire thread has prompted me to reconsider. If clubs come in, then 3N seems almost as likely to make as 2N. If clubs don't come in, then even eight tricks in notrump probably aren't available.

So, I've decided I prefer 2 followed by 3 (if a heart fit is not revealed). As is often said by panelists in the “Master Solvers Club,” we're likely to identify the right strain even if ending up at the wrong level.
Dec. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even if this partnership allowed an inverted 2 raise when also holding four diamonds (which I understand is a common agreement), it's not clear to me that East's Axxx would justify showing diamond length rather than heart shortness. If West has a chunky four-card diamond suit and thinks that strain might be better than clubs, there might have been a way for West to mention diamonds at some point.
Dec. 19, 2019
David Levin edited this comment Dec. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What Richard intended to do to the tie reminded me of a somewhat analogous procedure.
Dec. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems to me also that 3 did not deny a four-card side suit. In addition to the reasoning you give, it's the kind of detail that the conductors (Kokish and Kraft) typically find out from the players.
Dec. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This reminds me of a six-level call that Chip Martel (partnering Lew Stansby) made in “Challenge the Champs” (The Bridge World, April 2001):

North dealer; North-South vulnerable
West East
(Martel) (Stansby)
K2 A106
KQ10 A
Q642 A95
AKJ6 Q109732
1
2 (1) 2 (2)
2N (3) 3 (4)
4 (5) 4N (6)
5 (7) 6 (8)
6 (9) 6N (10)
P

(1) inverted raise
(2) artificial, game forcing, 4+ clubs
(3) at least an opening bid, side stoppers
(4) shortness
(5) Key-card Blackwood for clubs
(6) 0 or 3 key cards
(7) queen inquiry
(8) queen but no side king
(9) improvised, hoping East would bid seven holding fewer than four diamonds
(10) of 6, the contest conductors wrote, “Ingenious, but too tough.”
Dec. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And if your opponent wasn't wearing a tie?
Dec. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I neglected to say that the percentages in the discussion-starter were chosen arbitrarily, to make the non-transitivity easy to see.
Dec. 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
+1 for the title.
Dec. 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If one were to assign percentages to each contract and plot them against a scale, it might look something like this:

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
6 3N 5
The percentage for 6 making is more than half that for 3N making, so that the former is the favorite at matchpoints. Likewise, 3N is a favorite over 5 at matchpoints. But the percentage for 6 making is less than half that for 5 making, making the latter the favorite even at matchpoints.
Dec. 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Given the article composition tools available here, simplest might have been to make the follow-ups a bullet list.
Dec. 16, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps “civilized.”
Dec. 16, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps your ability at this would rapidly improve if the system card were attached not by a lanyard but by a bungee cord. 8^)
Dec. 16, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The article doesn't seem to be displaying as intended. The diagram is followed by a “handviewer” string that indicates slightly different spots (the point of which was presumably that Declarer failed to unblock the 9 and 8). The text contains many disconcerting line breaks.

Regarding the play, did Declarer ruff the third round of diamonds before leading the second round of hearts?
Dec. 15, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would expect total paid hours/year versus total volunteer hours/year to be more meaningful than number of paid staff versus number of volunteers.
Dec. 15, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It sounds like this new partner is in the running for ex-partner.
Dec. 15, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top