Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Patterson
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 39 40 41 42
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I tend to lead passively against players who won't necessarily find the best line if left to their own devices, and aggressively against declarers who I think play the hands well.
I'm also likely to pick the lead I think most likely to be made by the majority of the room against average declarers and I'm a little more likely to pick off-center or deceptive leads against very good declarers.
All this is of course a secondary consideration - the primary consideration being the bidding and my hand.
If my partner is asked about my style, should she say “It depends how good he thinks you are” and if the matter is pursued further, say “Well I happen to know he thinks you are a below average declarer”. It may be full disclosure but it isn't going to make for a happy table experience.
Another obvious variable is what I think the state of the match or game to be. If I think we are doing well I am liable to be a bit more conservative in my leads towards the end of the session. If I am chasing I am more likely to go aggressive. Are my opponents entitled to know how I think our game is going?
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you that is wonderful
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
withdrawn
Sept. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How much does it change anyone’s opinion if the hand is
Q32 2 KQ432 A432 ?
Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As no-one has suggested it - it has to be wrong. But I play this type of hand as an immediate 1NT overcall. 14-17 and it hasn't caused many problems.
Aug. 12
David Patterson edited this comment Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I take your point and probably I am being way too much of a snowflake.
But often in this forum someone will write a post about an anonymous opponent and that opponent will later appear to give their version of events. So in this case if the TD in question did decide to give his version, he would already be labelled a “douche-bag” in the opening post. I just find it a bit too much like hanging the guy and holding the trial later.
Maybe this guy deserves that, but it still makes me very uncomfortable.
Aug. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm very uncomfortable making any sort of judgement without hearing both sides of a story.
I also don't really see what the thread has to do with bridge.
I have no doubt that the world is indeed filled with sexism and many men regularly abuse and harass women. I also think that sexism pervades the world of bridge and the world of social media.
If I were totally persuaded that this was a case of sexism and/or harassment, I would still think it had everything to do with social media and nothing to do with bridge.
If my daughter met someone when accompanying me to a concert, and that person later sent them a facebook friend request, I wouldn't think it an appropriate matter for a classical music forum, even if the befriender was employed by the concert hall.
I totally understand that the OP was very upset when she posted this, but I do wonder how referring to someone as “sleazy” and a “douche-bag” fits in with the site guidelines.
Aug. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why doesn't line #3 also get the 3-2 break with AJ doubleton offside? He is also allowed to reason that E will only take the A first time if he has AJ doubleton. He is only committed to finessing the J on the second occasion if the A was not played first time around.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We are discussing a pair who can't agree on whether a two level bid shows clubs or diamonds Yet we are assuming that they will know what trump suit they have agreed, which bids are forcing and what sort of Blackwood they are playing.
After the start they made to this auction, which is as insane as one of them playing Precision while the other plays SAYC, are we really supposed to assume that they will magically find themselves on the same wavelength without the aid of UI?
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are hands on which it is impossible to restore any sort of bridge equity.
In this case a pair couldn't remember something as basic as whether or not they were playing transfers after overcalls. Any attempt to predict how this pair will behave in the rest of the auction (without the aid of UI) is simply an exercise in futility. They have already demonstrated that they were completely lost until there was UI.
I think it is time for a rule change. Instead of expecting directors to act as fortune tellers, the board should be played at both tables and the innocent party should have the option of accepting the result, or having the board scrapped and a 5IMP penalty imposed on the guilty side. It only works at teams, but it might encourage players to remember their system.
Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that the overtrick is a red herring and clouds the true issue.
The point must be that West immediately knows that his partner has not led a singleton and therefore does not pursue the most obvious line of defense, and in fact the only line of defense that looks possible to defeat the contract at teams.
Safe in the knowledge that he cannot get a ruff he feels free to cash his spade and then play his partner for a highly unlikely (if not impossible) Q & K
Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is complete insanity to ask a kibitzer. They often have an affiliation to the players they kibitz. And can completely side with their version of events without consciously lying.
It is like asking a Steeler's fan if Franco Harris' “immaculate reception” really was a catch
Aug. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a game. A wonderful and beautiful game - but still just a game.
If we can't find a way to make allowances for those with disabilities who still wish to play we should be ashamed of ourselves.
We should also be honest and admit that moving players on and awarding slow play penalties fairly, is actually impossible with the limited staff available. It isn't like anyone ever admits that they were responsible for the delay, it is always the fault of the organization, or the previous opponents who delayed them, or, or, or……….. Resulting in a discussion that slows the movement down even more. And unless a Director has followed a pair around the room they can't always be certain who caused the delay.
None of this is a reason for a director to be discourteous or rude, but it is easy to see how a director who is struggling to get a room to finish on time and who doesn't wish to continually admonish someone whose slowness is caused by a physical problem, might be working under considerable pressure and behave with something less than complete propriety.
Everyone gets upset by slow play, particularly if they are seated behind, or following the slow players. But we play a game with an aging player base and maybe we just need to learn to cut each other (and the directors) some slack.
Maybe part of the joy of still being able to play to a reasonable standard and play quickly, should be to help facilitate others who are not so fortunate.
This is by way of a general comment and not aimed at the OP, I fully accept that she was treated badly and I am in no way questioning her version of events.
July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am going to play East for one spade honor mixed in with his clubs to explain his double. But I'm not sure that helps me much.
I'd have stayed in dummy and led the spade at trick 2 hoping to lose to West because East still may not realize he has a spade honor. But if East covers I duck and now I'm guessing which squeeze to play.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just to be clear, I said very, very slow for a reason. I too don't mind a reasoned pause by the defender at trick one, but that is not what I was describing.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring your own stated priorities. Where the first priority is attitude. The second is length and suit preference only comes third.
No one could fault you for treating the 10 as encouragement to continue - you make the decision, after the hesitation, to treat it as suit preference.
Partner's only lack of confidence here was that you might not treat his discard as suit preference. His hesitation was to show that he was ignoring your first two priorities.
If your stated priority was suit preference at trick one, you have no problem, but it isn't and in my estimation that leaves you with a big ethical problem.
July 9
David Patterson edited this comment July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
His highest card was a ten, he had no high card points
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your carding is standard, high asks for a continuation and it doesn't come much higher than a ten in this case.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is hard to see how a second spade is taking advantage of UI when your number one priority is supposed to be attitude. In this case you are the one deciding to follow your number 3 priority after a healthy hesitation from your partner suggests that his signal is neither attitude nor length.
If you woodenly follow your own stated priorities it is hard to see how you are taking advantage of UI.
In the higher priority cases of attitude or length partner could be telling you that a second spade is safe and you won't be giving a ruff sluff. I think there is a huge ethical problem on over ruling that after partner's hesitation and especially in the absence of a Lightner double.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Re points 2 & 3, partner is 5206, 10 high. You might want to talk about bidding in general and not just Lightner doubles.
What I'm driving at is your first point and whether it now makes you uncomfortable about the whole hand?
July 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 39 40 41 42
.

Bottom Home Top