Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Larkin
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 47 48 49 50
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
LQAI
11 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
…and?…
11 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Spooky.
Now realise that in Americaland (or bits of), I posted this around that time….but that wasn't the point (and would be weird if it was precisely then)
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3.35.
Approx.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks all.
Did indeed intend to add-on.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Suddenly I feel so foreign.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
18-19 must feel left out.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But you yourself are more a 3SDs than a 2SDs?…. for “comfort” (the first comment mentioned Pharma trials…. and I am never comfortable with a p<0.05)
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So declarer can insist that one of these exposed cards (and which one) is to be led?

Edited/addition. Indeed does insist. I assume therefore he cannot insist on a different lead?
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Besides… Trouble is his middle name…..
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is probably a difference between your being clearly convinced and the evidence being clear and convincing.
MAR: didn't quite understand your description of the rather large range.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Now that's what I call precision.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Two weeks ago, playing at the “no fear” afternoon club game with ( very senior in years) random partner; when on lead, he started laying his hand out as dummy.
I called the TD to help out the bemused opps.
Partner ended up with three small diamond penalty cards, and spent the entire hand in a dwam (Scottish fugue), saying pleasantly at the end that in all his 40 years playing with an internationalist partner (which turned out to be true….though not in internationals) he had never heard of such a ruling.

As a rulebook aside for the experts. As it happens, he led one of his diamonds as simplest plan. However, since he deliberately placed his diamonds on the table, would he be obliged to lead one of them?
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yep.
Agree possibly an irrefutable point
Otherwise, every time you make a “take a view” type decision, you will have to consider all bids by your partner up until then….wonder if they could possibly have misbid….wonder what misbid they were most likely to have made…wonder what that would suggest you should do…etc.
And this when NOTHING untoward has occurred.
Which makes me wonder whether whether MS you did indeed spot something at this table, and deep down you can feel it?
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice change to “option”…
July 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Genuine semantics question.
Would the contract/result be “rolled forward” to four hearts?
July 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To be fair…probably somebody like him.
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree. As an aphorism, it doesn't quite work.
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But…..we argue day and night about whether a certain call is an LA, or whether certain UI suggests a certain action.People in the very upper echelons of discussing the game, and people like myself. I believe there is almost no doubt that the bid of four hearts cannot be made here. Passing is a clearly sensible option, therefore an “LA”, but partner's hesitation looks like he's considering 4H so there is a clear indication that I should bid it as far as scoring goes. But more experienced minds than my own are not convinced.
That is why I feel a PP should not always be given, even if the decision means the player has “committed” an offence that may warrant one. It is easy to convince yourself that you are doing your best not to take advantage, and that you are doing what you would have done without the UI. Indeed you may be doing exactly that, but the Laws demand more. So a chat/explanation/warning might often be most appropriate.
A bit like a soccer penalty decision. Ball- to-hand?…hand-to-ball?…looks accidental…but hand raised a bit…odd position… on balance, it's a penalty. But you don't send him off.
July 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, but pretty much everything he said is spot on….
Except that a PP might be inappropriate, depending on level, history, and whether warning/explanation (I realise warning is a PP) would be enough (situation is hypothetical).
July 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 47 48 49 50
.

Bottom Home Top