Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John D'Errico
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd bet the Rueful Rabbit could find it though. One could even wrap a little story around it too.
Dec. 14, 2018
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Avon - HEY! Stop passing around rumors that pizza is not in the vegetable family. I base my entire diet around that idea, in my eternal quest to eat more healthily. Next, you are probably going to tell us that fruitcake is not really a fruit.
Dec. 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Spelt more correctly, lose your a$$.
Dec. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Somebody surely has the diamond queen, since we don't have it. Or, do you have it hidden away in your pocket?

I suppose I could flip a coin to decide who to play for the queen. But why not take the odds? Even if the odds are only 53-47 in favor of West, it seems the best choice. West made a vulnerable overcall, which if it is on only 5 spades to the KQ, might seem a bit light. If West actually had 6 spades, thus KQJxxx and nothing else, they might have chosen to overcall as a 2-level preempt anyway.

So if you force me to not take any finesse, I will need to try to ruff it out, and that will require just as much luck for success.
Dec. 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd usually suggest an endplay when in a grand slam. I just don't understand why nobody wants to be my partner. So, then I decided to try ducking a trick to rectify the count. Again, more partners deserted me.

More seriously, I think it makes some sense to play West for the diamond queen. West overcalled (vulnerable) with very few points outstanding. That makes West something of a favorite to hold the diamond honor. It also means you need only to ruff one round of diamonds in dummy.

So, win the spade ace, pitching a small diamond.

Win the spade ace. Ace of hearts and a heart to the king. If trumps were breaking poorly, you will need diamonds to behave well. But now you know trumps are 3-2. Diamond finesse to the jack, cash the diamond king. Club to the ace. Ruff a diamond with the jack. Ruff a spade back, draw the last trump. Club to the queen. Ruff a spade back to enjoy the club and diamond winners.

This line requires diamonds no worse then 4-2, with the queen in the West hand. But if that is happening, then you could have pitched the low club on the spade ace.

As Martin points out, ruffing two diamonds in dummy is another possibility. But that also requires diamonds no worse than 4-2, as well as a happy heart split. Playing for the diamond hook to be working should allow you to survive in some cases when West has a singleton heart.
Dec. 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bridge has also evolved as you should well know, with the median age going through the roof for bridge, as well as large numbers of bridge players that no longer smoke.

As for the evolution of poker, to me it seems like the evolution of that game has involved a huge influx of younger people.

I just did a quick check online, where I searched for the average age of poker players at major poker tournaments. The links I found show an average age from as low as 26 up to roughly 40.

You are still comparing apples to oranges, yet hoping to extract grape juice from the result.
Dec. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This was the very first thing that came to my mind. When I see a picture of any group of top level poker players, few of them are 70 or older. Yet if I look at any large group of bridge players, certainly in the US, I am still often the youngest person in the room at 62.

So it seems a bit unfair to compare two groups of people with a 40 year differential in average age.
Dec. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“he might have a clue where our $5,000,000 actually went to.”

Actually, it was recently offered to me, by a nice fellow from Nigeria, I believe. The money should be arriving any day now. :) :)
Nov. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Problems in that too.

- All bridge tournaments use local volunteer support heavily. Making sites permanent will overwhelm that volunteer base. The result will be the ACBL will then need to bring in and pay extra people to do what was done for free before.

- Not all people want to fly to every NABC. In fact, you will find at any NABC a lot of locals playing due to the opportunity of having an NABC in town, or at least only a moderate travel time away. So by putting them in permanent sites, you artificially favor those individuals who happen to live nearby, and say good bye to many individuals who will then never bother to attend those permanent sites, because they are not sufficiently accessible.
Nov. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've usually used leftbot, rightbot, centerbot, abbreviated to LBO, RBO, and CBO.
Nov. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Based on the results of some of my preempts, some of my partners might think of me as a stupid gambler. Is that close enough? ;-)
Nov. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While this might work against a novice at the art, anyone truly good at the art of stealing a wire will have checked your score against those at other tables, and come to the conclusion you have inserted a red herring. ;-) In fact, I can foresee the day when you are then brought up on charges, that you have intentionally tried to mislead them in their attempt to win by any means possible.

/CynicMode off
Nov. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But before GIB gets a turn in the well, Chthonic might be an interesting choice.
Nov. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I shall not serve.”

Ok, but even if you will refuse to serve, I'd wager you still would make a better prez than what we have seen from the ACBL in this administration.

Make this my write-in for BUNDY!
Nov. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And I'm not saying your idea is not playable. When it hits the right hand for partner, you may get a home run in. (As an utter extreme, opening 7NT to show a balanced 4333 hand with exactly 12 HCP might work marvelously on the very odd day. However, we would all agree that it is an inelegant way to show that hand type.)

In fact, I'll even offer a good example of an agreement that I used with one partner for a few years. It described an extremely rare hand, so it pretty much never came up, only once in several years. The one time it did come up we got a great result though. The basic agreement was 2♢ for us described a hand that was too big, too massive in comparison to what most players would open a strong 2♣ on. We got the bid in, alerted as such, and our opponents interfered anyway on crap. When we doubled and set them for a mountain, they complained to the director. His response was to laugh and walk away, with the comment, “What part of too strong to open a strong 2♣ did not make sense to you?”

Anyway, while that hand type was fairly immune to competition, we gave it up, since it just never happened. At the same time we were wasting too many opportunities to make better use of 2♢.

I would just suggest with big hands, you do best to keep the bidding low. That is especially true when you don't even specify the suits, as then you still need to know if 3NT or even 6NT is right, etc. As well, the hand type that the LTC 2♢ bid shows is quite wide ranging in strength.

This means that higher level bids should be as descriptive as possible or they should be preemptive. (Both can sometimes apply, as in the case of multi.)

What I did with several conventional agreements that I have developed with partner was to use a hand generator to generate fairly large sets of hands that fit the description of a proposed agreement. Then with partner, we would decide how the bidding might go with the proposed agreement. We would also ask how we would have bid those same hands IF we did not have the proposed agreement in place. Finally, we would also look critically at the alternative uses for that bid. Were we giving up just too much for a bid that would rarely arise? The question of interference was also important, since people would quickly learn when to interfere in our sequences.
Nov. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This should have been a poll, getting at whether East should have bid with that flat hand and giving the distribution away. At least make declarer work. ;-)
Nov. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So these hands should force to a grand?

AKxxx
AKxxx
xx
x

opposite

x
xx
AKxxx
AKxxx

Since both hands have 5 losers. In actual play you may be lucky to make a game, IF you make the right guesses. Yes, I'll admit that normal bidding will still see those hands end in some game, probably 3NT.

But on the above hands, you would start 2♢, partner needs to show their own LTC, and you are now starting out at the 3 level and nobody has even shown a single suit. Stopping anywhere low will be difficult at best.

I'd suggest it is better to start the bidding low. Now you will have an opportunity to show both suits even if your opponents do get in the way. Don't waste two levels of bidding just to announce you have a decent distributional hand.
Nov. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd bet that those who made 11 tricks had a Stayman sequence, showed hearts, then getting to 3NT. West chose not to lead a heart from the ratty suit, instead leading a spade. That gave declarer time to find 3 spade tricks, and helped them to find the jack. Duck a diamond for 11 tricks.
Nov. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David - great advice, and as a perfectionist myself, it does hit home.
Nov. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assuming you do mean the ACBL, my reading of all the charts, basic through open+ seem to disallow any natural NT bid with a range larger than 5 HCP. They are effective 11/22/18.

http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/about/181AttachmentD.pdf
Oct. 25, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top