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.
West hit the jackpot when he caught ideal hands all around. My usual luck would either receive a three-club jump shift or a two-notrump response.
3 hours ago
Ercan Cem edited this comment 2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would not 3♥ offer such choice of games?

It would not. It sure does include those possibilities. Given that we are by definition “defensive bidding” and that two clubs is nonforcing, three hearts would cover all game-forcing hands, including three-notrump probe.
5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They are no longer Italians bridgewise. They played for Monaco some years befire their ban.

Reminds me of:

Albert Einstein presented a paper on his then-infant Theory of Relativity at the Sorbonne, the French university. “If I am proved correct,” he said, “the Germans will call me a German, the Swiss will call me a Swiss citizen, and the French will call me a great scientist. If relativity is proved wrong, the French will call me a Swiss, the Swiss will call me a German, and the Germans will call me a Jew.”
Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
D.B.: With respect to your concerns, you should also mention how one is supposed to comment about the fact that: (1) From the beginning of this F-N affair, their countrymen have been consistently silent; (2) ready to defend them on the slightest excuse; (3) even attack back implying that people are jealous of Italian players; (4) and, as of now, welcoming their cheaters.
Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Give FN a chance.

This is bullshit. Had F-N confessed their sins and showed some shame, one might have considered giving a second chance. As it is, not only that they do not deserve one, whoever speaks and acts and sympathizes on their behalf is just as guilty.
Sept. 22
Ercan Cem edited this comment Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
F+N walked, in part because of these sort of issues.

They walked because the people who made the decision had less than zero knowledge of bridge. In Avon's upbringing, to an expert, the case is closed once an alleged expert passes partner's takeout double with ace-queen-seventh in hearts. To an outsider, hundreds of such examples mean nothing. Somebody can always bring some argument to give a ruling based on something. (And the question still remains: From R.W.'s point of view: Exactly what does it take to bring as proof so that everybody is satisfied?)
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
R.W.: What if the only hands where records survive are ones where something interesting happened either in the bidding or the play? How would this impact your analysis?

H.P.: Richard's question seems quite valid.

How can it be a valid comment except asking questions that have no answer?

(1) Who is going to decide which deals survived and why they survived?

(2) What is the proof that, considering the case Avon makes, Richard asserion has any relevance at all?

(3) What must be the case so that no question is asked about the analysis? Thomas gave the perfect example: If a video catch someone shop-lifting, how can that be cherry-picking?
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting piece of comment.

What if the original analysis is objective but your comments are biased?
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We learn from history that we do not learn from history.

After a recent cheating incident in Turkey (and there was no question about the case) people (whom in other circumstances would assert otherwise) simply continued to play against them. People actually lined up to play in his team under his sponsorship.
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(1) Natural must be assuming multiverse theory, for it is not from this universe. (2) Taken as a whole, diamonds would be an inconsistent agreement. (Imagine opponents' suit being spades: should four notrump show diamonds or hearts). (3) Ace-asking/RKCB is possible; however, not only that slam-try will come up more frequently, but it will also solve respectable portion of the cases where ace/keycard askers are successful. (4) More optimal agreements are possible (for example, four notrump creates a force if opponents compete further, or encouraging partner to compete further if he wishes so), but those would advisable for advanced partnerships only, and it is challenging to generalize the idea so that future accidents are avoided.
Sept. 13
Ercan Cem edited this comment Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If one was certain that a three-spade bid is coming from the advancer, transfer bids usually work better (opener at least knows your suit), otherwise, it is generally better to assign it as strength-related meaning (Good/Bad, or whatever).
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whether the final bid is justified is perhaps debatable. Had this been a ATB problem, I would say North is more guilty. Given the opponents “unwild” preempting, and partner's non-Exclusion, South has every right to exercise judgment and place partner with a non-void.

What I do not understand are those comments along the lines of, “partner took control and made a decision” and all that hogwash. Does every four-notrump bidder must think along the lines of “I do not know whether I am good enough to offer a choice between this and seven notrump if it comes to that, so I shall not take control!”? Happy keycarding about twice a year.
Aug. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, it would take a lot to impress a player like yourself, someone who has seen it all. When was the last time you saw/heard/ (or perhaps executed): a bid/a defense/a declarer play that made you say “that was hell of a bid/defense/play”?
Aug. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My complaint is about—discrimination, inequity, injustice, bigotry, unfairness—towards average players in general and junior players in particular.

Example: In favorable vulnerability a junior opens Jxxxxx xxx xx xx with three spades and the bid is immediately labeled as “a junior bid.” One way or another, we all know the full implication of that comment. When a world class expert takes exactly the same view, it now becomes “an aggressive preempt.”
Aug. 23
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
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
.

Bottom Home Top