Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ian Wilson
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 15 16 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
S has a max and a double fit after 3 from partner.
Should drive to slam after this.
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Surely you aren't omitting Bludgeon, are you, Paul?
Oh .. “serious”. Hmmm.
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The first board looks a lot more like an 11-count than a 10-count to me. I think the stated 11-15 range is a better description for opps (I am sure there are many 10 counts that you don't upgrade).

The second board seems pretty standard these days.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
..not to mention the choice of test revealing more about the interrogator than the subject-apparent..
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Recently I have noticed the scorekeeper consulting the Bridgemate during the play when declarer. While declarer is entitled to know what the contract is, I assume that looking at the Bridgemate is illegal since
a) declarer's right to ask is state-dependent (perhaps, depending on the placement of the comma, above
b) the Bridgemates display the lead (I think), clearly not something anyone is entitled to see during most of the hand
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
..the fourth answer in Master Solvers'.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Positively grotesque is a personal best for me :)
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think I misread my notes, and that 65% is correct (100-35).
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought it might be interesting to look at the a priori probability of partner's hand holding enough relevant cards for a slam to be likely. The ‘relevant cards’ are A, K, K*. If dummy shows up with 2 (or more) of these then slam is reasonable (provided that dummy also provides “enough” trumps).

Referring to the mighty TABLE 26 of Borel & Cheron, we find that the probability of dummy's containing 2 relevant cards when the other 3 hands contain 3 relevant cards is about 22%. The chance that dummy will also provide at least 2 trumps is somewhat less than 35%.

Together the chance of finding the right cards in dummy to make 12 tricks (or more) is about 8%. So I am not sure that opening 4h (assuming we won't now find slam) is particularly poor compared to either:
a) opening 1h and playing it there, or
b) opponents' being able to compete effectively in spades

* there are other ‘relevant cards’ such as the Q. But these are not relevant unless coupled with a late entry, so I think are infrequent enough to ignore for purposes of forming a rough estimate.
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A pretty good hand for Namyats (8-ish playing tricks) but if we're not playing that then tough to choose between 2c and 4h.
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Spoiler: my choice was to pass. I was somewhat disappointed when this turned out to be the only non-positive score for EW. Partner's hand is a super-fitter: QT543 A54 AT83 T; so 5 and 3NT both make. You might even make 6 against particularly dull defence. And there were various doubled diamond partscores.

Paul: I seriously considered opening 4 (scoring less than average assuming no-one is going to X this). You are right; I didn't consider opening 1.
April 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My opening choice was one of the set of choices currently chosen by the illustrious choosers (currently 1, 2, 3 and pass). It scored me exactly 0 in a recent BBO Speedball MP tournament.
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nothing complicated. Just something like:
http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?linurl=http://tinyurl.com/y77b63q7

I see there is a video on this. I'll take a look tomorrow.
April 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here you go: http://tinyurl.com/y77b63q7

In return, please could someone tell me how to use this with handviewer (outside the BBO environment). Gura mie ayd.
April 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Moments before reading this article I was pleasantly surprised to be able to chalk up +1330 after a bot special lead against 6N-X: the hand holding both Aces decided to lead neither of them. Both my 7-card suit and dummy's 6-card suit ran providing 13 tricks.

I should know better by now than to assume that a passed bot is safe from high-level adventures; more like an unexploded landmine!
April 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Originally 2c in BTC could include a 4M if upper range (14-16). With lower range you opened 1M/1d/1NT and rebid appropriately.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed. In none of the Precision/Blue Club partnerships that I've played in does a 2 response to 2 guarantee significant values. So the only sane meaning for a double here is a robust - 2-suiter. I agree that one could wait aeons for this to come up.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Our 1NT in this position is 11(+)-14.
March 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a nice Schroedinger's Cat thing going on here. Until an opponent asks a question (“makes an observation”) the strength of the preempt is undetermined..
March 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have this treasure also. I had no idea it was part of a larger treatise, however. I am in awe of the grunt work that must have gone into compiling many of these tables in pre-Fortran times.

One table I actually consult occasionally is the number of cover cards that you may expect given the number you hold, etc. Kind of a barometer of optimism.
Feb. 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 15 16 17
.

Bottom Home Top