Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ercan Cem
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, around here you are supposed to take a poll even when you sneeze.
Aug. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can think of at least three ways to interpret opener's way of bidding: (1) showing concentration in diamonds (as already mentioned in comments above); (2) showing diamond ace, heart ace, and club king (not possible given our holding); (3) top spade honor, heart ace, diamond king, club queen (because he skipped clubs previously).

(By the way responder's bidding was revolting: he initiated slam try but said nothing about heart control. How should opener evaluate his hand? From the opener's point of view, responder may stopped because he lacked heart control. One of the first rules of control bidding: One cannot initiate slam try and then randomly claim “I am done” when he has a chance to show control before game level.)
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A diamond looks correct. (1) It seems essential not to give a trick declarer cannot make otherwise; (2) A spade may either endplay partner, or he may not see the correct defense from his side; (3) A diamond back suggests we have an original doubleton in spades (so partner should plan his play accordingly).
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With respect to 4 and 4 (in this context), it is usually much better to play: 4 = hearts, either to play or slam try+, 4 = hearts, mild slam try.
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ace from A-K, Ambiguous King (K from A-K or K-Q) and Rusinow have advantages and disadvantages. When the suit led is from known length, Rusinow is best: (1) It cannot mislead partner (it cannot be the case that the leader is leading an unsupported honor to arrange a ruff); (2) Ace-lead becomes unambiguous.

When leading a suit that partner bid and we raised, I suggest playing Ambiguous King: 99% of the time partner (who has length will know the position.)

(To me, King-asks-for-count is for know-it-alls. Useful when Hideous Hog partners Rueful Rabbit or Charlie the Chimp.)
July 18
Ercan Cem edited this comment July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After 1 - 1//3 - 3 the only thing that the partnership knows is that the final contract will be either in hearts or in spades, perhaps 99% of the time. Thus, bids by opener: 4 = slam try in hearts; 4 = slam try in spades. (The three-heart rebid in the above example is a clear misbid, so is not relevant to what I said.)
June 29
Ercan Cem edited this comment June 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am informed that President Jan Kamras has authorized the IT Systems Manager to publish the database of the 2018 European Team Championship. I guess it shall soon be on the official championship website.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tony, Ante: Relative Butler is something I have been thinking for a long time. Still couldn't figure out how it should be done. I thought of the method proposed by Ante, but I think it does not work. Here are two extreme cases:

Suppose there are 8 pairs: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H. Suppose {A, B, C, D, E, F, G} averaged +1 IMP against H. For the sake of simplicity suppose that {A, B, C, D, E, F, G} averaged 0 against each other. In the second version Suppose {A, B, C, D, E, F, G} averaged -1 IMP against H. And suppose that {A, B, C, D, E, F, G} averaged 0 against each other. With respect to above method, what are the relative Butler Scores?
June 18
Ercan Cem edited this comment June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also need the championship database. Considering that all the data is on the website and can be obtained manually, maybe someone who is good at web scraping can help us to grab it.
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My explanation would be Nemo the Fish bidding his hand. First he misbid, then he forgot what he bid, then he forgot what he forgot.
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Richard: Such answers make me so sick that in real life I do not allow such a person to ask me another bridge problem.
June 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When a convention collapses on a relatively mundane hand like this, to the point that you want to excuse yourself from the table, it is time to recollect and reconsider.
May 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry, thanks for the offer. The problem is that I have too many such deals and I am trying to figure out a long term solution.
May 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are dozens of such deals.
May 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems to be good case to use a simulator like Deal http://bridge.thomasoandrews.com/deal/
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Snake-Bitten Club.
May 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The title should have been “Trivial low-level competitive decision.”
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not only that I bid four clubs, if partner opposes my choice, I am finding a new partner. (I could open with two clubs only because I have spades and a nice planned auction.)
March 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Barry: Jeff Rubens is of course a supernatural editor. Yet crediting him primarily with that *in this thread* does injustice. His writing is superb, his bridge knowledge is perhaps more than any other person in the list.

@Alan: Danny Kleinman should also be in the list. He is an exceptional writer, thinker, and an authority both in bridge and backgammon. He has written dozens of bridge books, and hundreds of articles for the Bridge World.
Feb. 22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
.

Bottom Home Top