Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Larkin
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 40 41 42 43
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I now have no idea what you are saying.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Presumably If partner shows 4 keycards, you bid 6 with one missing - the same as Blackwood always was?
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But it may be that you are indeed handling 30 by stopping in 5. With 41, you are going to 6. It's not the higher number between 3 and 0 that is needed, but the higher between 3 and 4.
This style of “bidding on” only makes sense if the response is hugely vague. And it rather gets in the road of using rkcb to distinguish 3 from 4, which must surely be one of its purposes. It essentially turns the rkcb bid into a request for partner to go on to slam in two stages if he has EITHER 3 or 4 keycards ( he will show 30 or 41, partner will stop in five, and he will go on to six)….and surely that can't make sense?
Only works with a helpful hesitation…for some direction to be accidentally decided in advance.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The last sentence doesn't really work. The RKCB bidder didn't know what your response will be.. Maybe he is happy with 41, but not with 30.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
…Dammittt!…
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What?
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If it is, what hand does partner think you have that jumped to four spades, but has zero aces?
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“…70% as good as heart8….”

The simulations kinda ruin stuff. Like my wife using her mobile to find the CORRECT answer to something we're discussing….
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you misunderstand his.
It's all in the “why not?”
It makes total sense for the declarer to be aware of the contract, as the game is really about whether he/she can make it. So tell him what it is if necessary, and don't make the game silly (amongst other problems would be the stopping him from finding out by other means)
And there is no reason why this should be equated with other things you have to remember.

DIfferent things are different.

Using your “everything has to be the same” approach would suggest that declarer can ask to be reminded whether it is better to finesse or play for the drop when you have….
There's a lot of stuff on here where people try to argue that simple corrections we all take for granted should be disallowed “for the sake of consistency” - being able to put back a bidding card that has stuck to your hand or equivalent being a current example. The guys who make the rules do try to be sensible sometimes….probably all the time. We shouldn't make it harder by dreaming up inconsistencies that should be corrected to the detriment of common sense.

“A Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” RW Emerson.
Not sure what it means, but Isaac Asimov quoted it once, so maybe he did.
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed. I cry “foul!”.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I take it that it is modern expert think that gets us to double in the first place with a hand that becomes useful to describe after partner's jump. So the “better than 1NT, balanced” is no longer the meaning of the double?
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
DL
First suggestion OK, but the second is just
Ridiculous.
April 21
John Larkin edited this comment April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oddly enough….
And my son has the potential of being Dr.Dr.Dr….. but doesn't tend to use any.
I wonder which one comes first, technically (I had a boss in the past who insisted on being called “Professor Sir Abraham XX..” - the order (!) was very important to him.)
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RT: now that you've told ‘em, we’re never gonna find out.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“… intended…”
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Do you intend to follow this rule?”
“No. I will follow it, but that will not have been my intention.”…… apparently
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Except you already got the PhD.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
…asking partner to drop his honour under it………
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Old-fashioned Balanced 19-20. Fits for First option but more specific.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RF: Aha! You proved my point. Your story resulted in a good score for the England team.
Surely not a “good thing” - just as I stated.
:)
April 19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 40 41 42 43
.

Bottom Home Top