Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Karthik Srinivasan
1 2 3 4 5 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Right, I stand corrected. It's still lower odds as you need club guard to be isolated upfront in terms of 5-2.
June 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve: it's easier to defend in hindsight also.

I would wager that with 3-5, the early D discard takes significantly longer: even for the pros.
June 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Trump squeeze works on either opponent (just that LHO may be less likely to have both minors).

But there's a problem with the Vienna Coup line. It can't work on East.

Win the club switch, say E has clubs and diamonds. Pull trumps, AKD (Vienna Coup play), run hearts. Then what? East comes down to his diamond guard, unguarding clubs from original holding of 4. His partner still has 2 clubs and stops the suit. Can establish clubs by ruffing out West's club guard, but the dummy entry is gone with the Vienna Coup play of unblocking AKD.

That's why Vienna Coup is not a practical solution here: when it works, it works only on West, who is de-facto less likely to have both minors.
June 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also got to the trump squeeze by inspection. It looks like a Vienna Coup, but there is no hurry to isolate club menace. Win the club, run hearts coming down to Kxx club AKD in dummy,x club, xxx D, and the last trump in hand.

What this needs is the hand with 3+D to have 4+ clubs. Vienna Coup will need LHO specifically to have the two minors.

Geez, am now in the same league as John Diamond. Awesome.
June 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is atrocious logic.

I always defend on MCL (Missing-Card-Logic).

Looking at Qxx, missing are K9xx (Ten led from closed hand).

If declarer has Tx, yes, not covering could cost double dummy (by devaluing partner's 9).

But if declarer has say T9xx, covering hurts big time.

Also, when declarer has T9x, covering gives declarer a serious guess where dummy lacks entries *as is the case here*.

I would do this precomputation as soon as dummy hits (that covering TC IF led has significant downside) and will be prepared to duck smoothly.

It's a different thing to argue that T9xx or T9x with declarer is lower odds compared to Tx. But the article seems too be arguing that there's no downside to covering T compared to ducking it. Forget even about concealing the Q, there is legitimate downside (T9xx with declarer) to covering the Ten.
June 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Question: would these agreements on pass/xx depend on whether the X is for takeout or penalty?
June 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East, West and Yuan Shen should all do much better :-D
Nov. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I could actually understand if my partner had not counted out his pattern with 6-5-1-2. 6-5-1-3, TWO extra cards, I was shocked that he did not notice until trick 11.

Not even after getting doubled in 4M!!!

Of course, I was too busy trying not to split my stomach from laughing, to actually register shock.
Nov. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
LOL.

How do you miscount it AFTER my clarifier, mate?

My partner had 6-5-1-3. That's FIFTEEN cards. TWO extra cards (and 2 extra winners, hence his aggressive bidding).

My RHO had 1-1-5-4 shape. That's ELEVEN cards. TWO less cards, possibly held by my partner (but 2 less losers, hence his aggressive bidding).

Both me and my LHO could not be accused of not counting our cards.
Nov. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Same card in 2 hands, am sure has occurred a lot.

What I found funny about the incident was that the players happily play on, after studying dummy, and realize something is wrong only when the duplicate cards clash!
Nov. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you miscounted. My partner's shape was 6-5-1-3. My RHO was 1-1-5-4. Me and my LHO both had our fair share of 13 cards.

The incident is 100% real. The icing on the cake was my RHO's reaction to the director's ruling.

He was unsatisfied with the director's ruling, and didn't like that his +500 (and counting) was taken away.

So he turned to my partner and chided him, “You should count your cards before the hand.”

Really, all of this happened.
Nov. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am late to this thread, and I am not sure if anyone has posted similar stories already. I have 3 for you.

Story 1 (Credit to Sid Kilsheimer, a retired ACBL director from the Indiana region):
He once had a pair report after they played a hand, that they had already played the hand.
It turned out to be accurate. Someone had messed up the movement, and the same pair played the same board a second time. The rip-roaring funny part was that they got a worse result the second time they played it.

Story 2(Also credited to Sid Kilsheimer): Again, from his directing days: A director call in round 2 reported a fouled board: both Dummy and the hand after dummy had the same card (obviously not from the same pack). It was not clear from his narration if the first round had played the board as fouled, or did it get fouled after the first round. The funny part was that they did not notice it until about trick 6-7, when the duplicate cards clashed).

Story 3: My own experience (from this calendar year):

I am playing with a partner who started out as a bit conservative in bidding style. I've been trying to persuade him to get more aggressive, and it paid rich dividends when he picked up a hand with 6-5-3-1 shape.

He opens the six card suit, opponent overcalls his minor, my partner's singleton. I venture a competitive raise with my 3-3-3-4 shape (4 of the opponent's suit).

3 of their minor, my partner introduces his second (5card) suit. 4 of their minor (my RHO is also excited about this hand: with 1-1-5-4 shape, he sees few losers), double, pass, 4 of my partner's six card suit, double, all pass.

And the play goes on. AFTER trick 11, we're forced to call the director, as one of the defenders has run out of cards. My partner was already down 2, but we gleefully accepted the average result assigned to us by the director.




Nov. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK, I missed another squeeze, you're right.
Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your error is in not doing true double dummy.

If declarer can strip major suits and throw opponent in with diamond, defense can, double-dummy, preempt that by removing their own throw-in cards.
Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Huh? Ace-King of diamond, major suit exit. Please proceed.
Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You tell me:

Does it seem correct to require West to disclose the FTA, and then allege that the disclosure created UI and it is their responsibility?

If you read my post, I advocated that the disclosure of the FTA be done in writing, as procedure.

Is UI still there? Perhaps, but East is guessing much more, now, compared to the oral disclosure.
Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why 3 S -1? 3 S is cold. Only defense leading out AC allows 4 spade, but 3 spade seems to be making with normal play.

Am I missing something?
Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is UI, because East presumably did not catch the Drury conventional bid.

The Law (requiring disclosure of the FTA) created the UI.

IMHO the law should also require that this disclosure be made in writing, so whatever East does, is based on guesswork.

There is an argument still, that East may not bid 4 spade since pass of 3 Spade is a LA and bidding 4 is more attractive with a 6-4 fit as opposed to 6-2.
Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, it has been mentioned, Mike. I guess you're ignoring me LOL.

“The laws require West to draw attention to the FTA.

If THAT action created UI, EW should not be held to the same strict standards regarding UI in general…..”
Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I said below: Kit laid it out.

In my defense, I took the director's test 10 years back, and haven't directed for 7 years and change.

Didn't recall the nuance that you and Kit have pointed out.
Oct. 20, 2015
1 2 3 4 5 6
.

Bottom Home Top