Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Levin
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“You guess to ruff the 3rd spade with the 10, and then cross to dummy. You lead the Q and it goes K, A, low.”

Assuming that the fourth round of clubs is ruffed by East (West's ruffing seems less of a problem: Dummy overruffs and leads the higher remaining trump for a finesse), then after South ruffs the third round of spades with the 10 and crosses to the A, it seems better to lead the 3 toward the jack rather than leading the Q. If the J holds, cash the A (hoping trumps were 2=3). If East's K pops up on the first round, lead the 5 toward the seven, ruff a spade with the jack, lead to the Q, and cash the long spade at Trick 13.

East could trip me up by playing the K on the first round when dealt K9x, but that would be a heck of a play.
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure I agree with the premise that Partner holds QJ9. Holding the bulk of our assets, Partner might need to retain exit cards in diamonds for as long as possible.

Perhaps Partner has x AQ109 9xx KJ9xx. If I return a diamond (after getting in with a spade), Declarer will probably win in hand in order to cash the long spade (on which Partner pitches the 10) and lead toward the K and East's ace. Partner exits with a club to Declarer's ace. If Declarer now exits with a heart to East's queen without first extracting East's remaining diamond, East can exit with a diamond and take the last two tricks on the forced club lead from Dummy.
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Public Service Announcement:

The play can be added to a hand diagram as described at https://bridgewinners.com/forums/read/bridge-winners-site-feedback/suggested-help-qa-on-how-to-add-to-hand-diagram-code/.

(I thought I'd mention this even though I had no difficulty with the text description of the play.)
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm trying to figure out why North opted for notrump rather than spades. If South's 2N suggested 5=4=3=1 (not saying that I think it should), perhaps North felt better-prepared for the likely diamond lead than if South was showing 5=4=2=2. But as North, I would prefer spades in either case.
June 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would say it denies the combination of (1) minimum response, (2) doubleton in opener's first suit, and (3) tolerance for opener's second suit.
June 22
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.
Was a negative double available to West over 2? (The answer probably won't make me want to retract my “like” of Etienne's comment, but it could be useful to know.)
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I haven't followed anyone, but in light of Joe's comment, perhaps I should reconsider.
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the correction. But now I'm curious as to why Bob's play, albeit startling, was so devastating psychologically.
June 20
David Levin edited this comment June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I knew I should have saved the link to Kit's comment (in a different thread) about a play by teammate Bob Ewen in a knockout match (I believe). Bob had opening-led from king-sixth (with Partner's holding a doubleton, possibly including an honor) against 3N and was correctly inferred not to have an entry. When a second diamond went to Dummy's honor (queen, I think), Declarer assumed that Bob started with only five or he would have taken the king to avoid stranding it.

This gave Declarer the impression that playing for an overtrick was safe, and so he threw Bob in with another diamond. Oops. This disaster so affected the opponents for the rest of the set, that Bob and his partner covered a bad set that Kit and his partner had at the other table.

(Apologies if my memory is inaccurate in any way.)
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps it would generally be good to mention the source of a deal.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know whether using the site's messaging to share content that was deemed a violation of the site's terms of use would itself be a violation of those terms, but I can see why it might be.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd have thought the reverse. 7= gains 11 IMPs vs. 6+1, but 7-1 loses 14 IMPs vs. 6=. But in matchpoints, a 50% grand breaks even so long as every pair is in 6 or 7.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“No way he'd bid that way with, for example, xx Kxx Jxxxx AQxx, would he?”

I don't see any way to bid with that. [8^) I realize that the second spade was probably unintended.]
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like that counting each side's winners reinforces that the declarer and the defenders have the same ultimate goal of a plus score at the end of the deal and that a given play tactic doesn't belong only in one side's toolbox (although many play tactics are more likely to be used by one side than by the other).
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I interpreted David Caprera's comment as saying that Bobby Wolff and Frank Shorter were cheated and that he didn't expect an attempt to make it right (such as by their being awarded gold medals). It doesn't seem to mention anyone's “wanting to be moved up.”
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does “midnight on August 5” mean one minute after 11:59 p.m. on August 5?
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After 1-(1)-2-(3);4-(P)-?, North might bid 4 to convey the double fit opposite a partner who probably has at most one spade. South could then bid 4, and North might then bid the slam but it's tough.

Added: On second thought, North's 4 might well convey a diamond control rather than a fit necessarily, but even that would be welcome news to South.
June 18
David Levin edited this comment June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Brad Crank?
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“So, do we agree that if AI can learn to play bridge well, and teach us what it learned, we should learn to trust AI?”

I think it depends on the context. If the valid states and their transitions are givens (as in chess and bridge, for example), then maybe. But in real life, trust in AI would often hinge on one's degree of trust in whoever defined the valid states and transitions.
June 18
.

Bottom Home Top