Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Gábor Szőts
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very good question. You hold a hand with only 4 losers but it is the hand to which partner may contribute some further losers. Even a good card and some stopper won't make game so let's see if partner can make another noise.
May 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I find nothing wrong with South's bidding. With 2 losing spades he has nowhere to go even if understanding his partner's bidding as a slam try. How to reach 7 is a difficult question because N has not yet announced support so his 4NT would look like plain Blackwood to me. Maybe N should have bid 4 over 3, thereby showing support, then S might cooperate sensibly with his controls, even ask for aces himself.
Now that N failed to express his hand adequately, there is maybe a last resort for him by jumping to 5 which might still show something similar to what he has.
May 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BTW, I have never read about 3-level new suits in competition. What if the opponents have s and I have one minor suit below GF strength? Or they have s and I have s? Is it advisable to play 1-(2)-3 as forcing? Or is it better to play it as nonforcing? If it is forcing, is a raise to 4 passable?
Traditionally I play these 3-level bids as forcing but I don't know why.
May 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play that only new suits and cuebids are forcing after a competitive 1/2. After 2 my 2, 2NT and even 3 bid would be nonforcing (you could argue with that last one).
The raise has not changed that approach. In my view only 4 and 4 would be forcing here, which leaves opener no choice other than 4.
May 5, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You say you had played with this RHO and abandoned him because of his light take-out doubles. Then this habit of him was perhaps a well-known fact and all partners would have ‘fielded’.
April 30, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was screenmate with 1NT'ers partner. He looked very suspicious. Maybe that should have convinced me to run. He tabled 12 HCP's with 4153 distribution. Partner had a 4144 5-count, his singleton heart was…not the queen.
April 23, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit, it seems to me that opener will bid 2NT with both hands and responder will raise that to three.
Opener might bid 3 with the first hand (if system allows) but I can't see how you land on your feet. Responder'd next bid will be 3 and now what? 4 as a choice of games? Will that be interpreted as such? Even if yes, next time that nice J is going to be in the opponent's hand. Or responder will have 3 small diamonds and 3 was your last making contract. However, after that 4 I fear that partner will think you have great things in mind.
Now if you had responded 1, opener would have bid 1NT with both hands, and responder would surely have a way to show his hand type (e.g. by jumping to 3 or via some check-back scheme).
April 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your facts are mostly quotes of opinions.
And please tell me if I played with a player in the past who was caught cheating (the Piekarek case), am I a cheater too?
And if that “We've known about them for a decade.” is true, why were they not reported. That top UK player deliberately chose to play against cheaters instead of reporting the ‘facts’.
And ”psychological terror“is not cheating so has nothing to do with our topic. That is a case of bad conduct which can be dealt by the tournament director (although I admit we also have top players who do that and somehow they are never punished).
April 20, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While answering the questions I raised my eyebrows several times at seeing the risky, sometimes crazy interventions they made. Many times I would not even have considered their choice. That could be style but it raised the question: did they always get away with it?
April 19, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If they won against France by means of cheating then France can have claims at the world title just as well as the USA. And, by induction, their oppenent before France may have such a claim as well (I don't know at what stage the knock-out stage began).
April 15, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is another way of playing the 1/1NT combination. 1 can be played as distributional, and all balanced hands weaker than a 1 opening are opened with 1NT. Of course this makes the range of 1NT very wide. Do you have experience with this?
I have a new partner with whom I play a 11-16 HCP 1NT which he insists has never caused problems for him. This enables us to play 1NT over 1 as a game forcing relay.
April 15, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have bid 4 over 2 and instead of 3. Now 6, any finesse will be on after the X of 3.
April 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To Peter Gill:

Peter, that's what I was looking for. I never claimed they were not cheating, only I would hate to see someone sentenced on insufficient evidence.
April 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That jump to 4 I find extremely mysterious. Why not 3 when partner will raise to 4 anyway if he has 4-card support? Can it be he was looking for a 4-3 holding 2 sure diamond stoppers? I am inclined to believe that 4 was an accident.
As for Bd12, it seems to me that 4 is cold on any lead. The enemy don't have time to remove all 3 minor stoppers. OK, that may be irrelevant. What was the bidding, did it not suggest that a lead was contraindicated?
In Bd16 I find the explanation of 3 acceptable. And don't tell me that S knew that E would bid 3.
At this point the only board I find really suspect is No5.
April 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There were 1 coughs by each player in board 4. Why is that board not icluded in the Donna Compton letter? Note: one of the coughers did not have a singleton.
On Bd11 why was there no cough indicating a lead? Surely they were on defence with their combined 13 count.
Why is Bd6 and 15 not included in the report?
April 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, especially the second pdf raises questions to which I would like to know the answer (e.g. no cough although spade single).
BTW, are the accusations based merely on 16 boards?

PS. I have tried to watch the videos on youtube but they were of awful quality, e.g. I never heard anyone but the man with the white hair (I don't know them personally) cough. Is there a good quality video available somewhere?
April 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, your stating that they cheated on every hand makes me think they were simply having fun cheating. Otherwise it is just plain stupid, they must have known they would be revealed.
April 2, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you for the replies, fellows.
March 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you, it was the theoretical aspect I was interested in.
March 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Any relation to Zsa Zsa or Eva?”

Not as far as I know.
March 1, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top