Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Dominic Cooke
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 29 30 31 32
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Somehow, despite the title, I don't feel like saying that my partner and I are never, ever, ever getting back together is quite what this article needs, so I should probably just leave a blank space rather than causing any bad blood.
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
…Craig's idea is way better, whoops. I should not have gone overboard with the throw-ins.
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Double dummy, you can always make 11 tricks by eliminating spades, hearts and S's doubleton club, then leading a high diamond from E while retaining a heart as an entry. S either ducks, letting you discard a club from W, or wins and is forced to lead from HTxx.

However, there's added complexity to that already tangled line re entries and the order in which you play the suits. I won't get into it, but it's safe to say I don't think it's possible for a player who can't see the hand records.
Sept. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing poor methods isn't winning bridge. Playing them and then not using them on the single hand type which they are perfect for isn't bridge at all. You're missing 13-14 HCP; swallow your pride and make a check.
Aug. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Front of the card with a WBF card, surely? In the EBU you'd put it on the front twice, I should think.
Aug. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh, sorry! I'd thought when reading it that it was a case-by-case basis - i.e. something comes up, someone complains, whoever's in charge decides whether it's a special understanding based on whether it's something readily understood and anticipated.

Sounds like it's even more non-alertable than I thought. Thanks for the added clarity!
Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe in the U16s I would prefer opps to be told about the agreement, because there's more of a chance they wouldn't notice? I suspect all the U16s I know would give me a withering look at that. But my limited Swedish tells me this was U21s.
Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A quick read of the alerting policy makes it obviously non-alertable unless it's a special partnership understanding. Law 40(b) defines that as one “whose meaning… may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament.” So I think Richard is slightly wrong about the alerting policy making no reference to what opponents expect.

But if it isn't alerted, what can it be but natural? A 3NT open as 25-26 balanced isn't something I would ever anticipate, but if it isn't alerted, I'm going to treat it as a natural bid. In the absence of an alert, NAT non-forcing can hardly be something unanticipated. Didn't need a TD call, didn't need an adjustment. I don't have a clue what Ian is on about above.
Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For me, playing with an unfamiliar partner, if I see a hand that looks kind of balanced and strong, I guess I'll treat it as strong and balanced. Specifically, too strong for a 2NT open here. I'm not really keen on opening a club? I don't like manufacturing reverses with an unfamiliar partner, and I don't really want to play in 3 if I rebid that.

I'm kind of interested by the folks going for 1-1X-3NT? For me that wouldn't suggest a hand as strong as this, but I'm guessing others differ.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess I should have asked about the second round of bidding, honestly.
Aug. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm pretty sure it's something pretty standard, like a good WNT with a heart stop.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm a very greedy player - I'd double 3NT and then 4C. Then after 4H I'd think to myself “oh, I've been greedy and been viciously punished”, and that message would stay with me until the next time the situation comes up.
July 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
UI does not force you to take crazy actions, right? If your partner goes for blackwood and you have 4 KC, you should be in slam. Pass is just not a logical alternative, unless I'm going absolutely crazy. Are you going to be rolling back the sequence 1NT - (hesitation)2NT - 3NT when opener has an 18 count, now?

3 depends on agreements, though. But if the card has an agreement to raise to 6 with 3 after a 0/3, how blinkered do you have to be to roll it back? Seems totally unreasonable.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sounds like politics to me, Phil.

Well, maybe not Williamson.
June 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It looks like less than 50%, right? So… nope. I don't know what the best game is - if it's 4, then I'm not getting there.
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems plausible if N opens something, at least.
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No agreement, but could be one or more artificial meanings? Isn't that alertable?
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Roger, I think it's pretty clear from the article that S was informed that the agreement might be that it shows s, or it might be that it shows s.

Amnon, I don't really understand where you got the idea of a / multi from; there is no suggestion that W thought his partner would take it as anything but a transfer, and the agreement was that it was a transfer.

Honestly difficult to read the article as saying anything else.
June 18
Dominic Cooke edited this comment June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My cards certainly don't give my agreements after a takeout-oriented double of my NT, at least.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At least he is clearly a Sound of Music fan.
June 15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 29 30 31 32
.

Bottom Home Top