Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Larry Sealy
1 2 3 4 ... 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is my plan. If he bids the unlikely 5, I'll try 5, hoping to coax a cue bid from him if he has the Q.
April 4, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I would have opened 1NT.
April 1, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with the conclusion, but partner should not have either of those hands. Most likely is something like Jxx, x, xx, KJ10xxxx. Yes, he could be void in hearts, such that 6C is making, but that will be impossible to determine. There are not enough high cards for partner to have the A.

There is no way that partner intended this to set up a forcing pass situation. He made a calculated bid to put pressure on the Opps. If you pass, it will be your lead. Bidding 6C seems like a huge gamble.
March 30, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If he opened 3 with 7 galloping s, he's very unlikely to hold any other high cards; so not really 5 ifs.
Feb. 25, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Exactly.
Feb. 20, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I assumed he passed (which is a call). Presumably, the “assign the blame” was with an auction that ended.
Dec. 22, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I actually think the 4 bid gave a pretty good description of the East hand. West, with all the controls, Q-bid, then went quietly. He needs to realize the value of all of his controls once his partner shows very good trumps. As East, I would have bid 5 over 4, but I think most of the blame lies with West.
Dec. 22, 2012
Larry Sealy edited this comment Dec. 22, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think there is plenty of blame to go around, including North. First, I like 4S by W, rather than 4D. It should be viewed as potentially more interest in slam than a Last Train-ish 4D and emphasize spades. I'm not fond of the 5C bid, I would have bid 5D. I would prefer a cue bid there to be 1st round control. If partner doesn't have a club control, we could lose 2 tricks there. The 5NT bid, if inferred as pick a slam, seems OK, and I think denies the club A, but its intent could inferred differently. Finally, it seems it may have been possible to think they were in uncharted waters as far as what each one intended all of the bids and inferences to be, so I think 7H was a big gamble - given the double of 4S, and if he thought he was down in match, probably worth taking. BUT, remember who was at the other table, so I would have to have a really bad set to be pretty certain I was down.

I think their bidding system takes a lot of the blame. If they were playing Kickback, David's Blackwood problem would have been solved. It does require a clear understanding of when it applies and when it doesn't, though, but that wouldn't be an issue here.

Finally, I don't like the trump lead. I think N could infer they were likely off an ace once E didn't bid 6C. And I think the A that is less likely to allow the contact to make when it is wrong is the Club Ace. This could only allow one discard and it probably would not be enough They probably have too many cards in S and D. The DA could allow it to make by setting up even one discard for the hand with a stiff club. There is also a decent chance it could se up more than one discard, which the CA wouldn't. This could be inferred if 5NT is interpreted as choice of slams.
July 31, 2012
Larry Sealy edited this comment Aug. 1, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed
June 17, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whether drop-ins should be allowed from a lesser event (I know the Senior KO has become quite strong recently, but it is a lesser event than the Reisinger) into a KO round of the Reisinger, is probably something that would have opinions on both sides. I suspect a majority would be negative, but I don't know that and it would be doable. But my question was referring to the proposal to allow teams that exit the Reisinger dropping into another event that DOES have C/O, such as the NA Swiss.
Jan. 8, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For the proponents of drop-ins, are you suggesting elimination of carryover, as in the World Pairs, or assigning an arbitrary C/O to those that drop-in?
Jan. 7, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff,

Yes, in my opinion, Truscott's book lays out irrefutable evidence from a number of well respected people, while Reese's attempts to spin things based on cherry picking hand and results. Reese was a great writer.
Nov. 13, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff Sapire South Africa:
“Steve Bloom; your comment on 5th Nov cannot go unanswered. ”Perhaps Reese as well, though the cheating scandal bothers me there.“

Terence Reese was clearly one of the greatest players/writers/thinkers in the game. Most experts and World Champions who talk about what most influenced their game almost always mention one or two of Reese's books, viz. The Expert Game, Develop Your Bidding Judgement and Play Bridge with Reese.”

I agree totally to what you said in the 2nd paragraph.

“The official World Bridge Federation position maintains the 1965 finding of guilty but after representations from the British Bridge League and others, the WBF announced in 1968 ”that the suspension was over, Reese and Schapiro would be allowed to play, but not together“ in the world championships.

To be candid, I have always had a lingering uncomfortableness about the incident, as do you and others.”

If you want to understand the incident more clearly, I suggest you read Alan Truscott's book The Great Bridge Scandal. I suspect there will not be much lingering doubt in your mind once you read it.

As far as Reese on this list, I would still put him there. I don't know it you would say in spite of or not, but he certainly was one of the most influential, IMO. But I think we have to understand who we are putting on the list.

Nov. 12, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I was thinking about other sports and Jackie Robertson came to mind in baseball” Jackie Robinson, I presume. Not to take this off topic too much, and not to suggest any of these deserving of the list, but several sports personalities have also had quite a bit of success in bridge. To name a few (all now deceased), Harold “Squeezer” Guiver, former pro sports executive; Tommy Prothro, College Football HOF coach and Pro head coach; and Sherrill Headrick, 9 year veteran and 2-time All Star in the AFL.
Nov. 9, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The question, as posed was “most influential” - no qualifiers. So, my interpretation is that the list is not limited to those with only positive impacts. For example, if we were compiling a list of most influential people of the 20th century, surely one A. Hitler would make the list. Although he had no positive contribution, he certainly had a huge effect on world history. Similarly, it's not clear to me that bridge personalities involved in cheating would necessarily be precluded. Reese was one of the great writers, and even his cheating, while certainly something that forever tarnished his image, also had a significant influence on the history of the game. To a lesser extent, some of the others involved in defending Reese in the aftermath of the Buenos Aires affair (I'll leave the names out here) have also influenced the game for better or worse. To an extent, even though (IMO) negative, this increases the amount of influence they have had.

Maybe the question should be phrased as “positive influence.” But as stated, I don't see how Reese (or others of a similar ilk) would be automatically omitted.
Nov. 7, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On the actual auction, I don't think W can be 3-2. That makes South 6H-5D/North 3-3 or South 5-5/North 4H-3D. Neither are consistent with the bidding.
Aug. 13, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
a priori, E is twice as likely to hold Hx in hearts than 9x. On this hand, the actual odds must take into account the HCPs indicated by the DBL and East likely holding the DA, but still, as Kit alluded to, I don't think the odds are near 50-50 on how to play hearts if W ducks smoothly - finessing the 7 seems clearly the right play.
April 11, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It works fine with Firefox, also. If you use the NoScript add on, you may have to allow (at least temporarily) some or all scripts.

Larry
Feb. 12, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AKxx opposite 9765 (or the like, missing only QJ108x). Leading 9 legitimately wins against stiff 8 behind AK. Also wins when 2nd hand holds QJ8x, q108x, or J108x and covers. It never loses (other than obscure endplays).
Aug. 24, 2010
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For the reference hand, a good point is made as far as the correct line of play, however, since the combinations do not have equal probability, it is not twice as likely. For instance, a 2-2 break is about 40.7%. Any particular 2-2 break occurs 1/6 of the time (that is of all 2-2 breaks). Mathematically, it is the combination of 4 things taken 2 at a time. So, Q3 on the left occurs about 6.8% of the time. a 4-0 break is about 9.6%. so AQxx on the left is half of that or a little less than 5% of the time. :)
Aug. 24, 2010
1 2 3 4 ... 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
.

Bottom Home Top