Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Leonard Helfgott
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 147 148 149 150
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are you sure about that? 75*26=1950, producing a 975 average. You can only get a 960 average with 24 boards and an 80 top, and 24 boards seems unlikely. But it’s early this morning so my math could be off.:)
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was the second day the same top per board and average, or other?
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So great to see a father-son team in this event, and THIS father-son team in particular.! Best of luck Michael and Kevin.
3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sounds like you guys are arguing unnecessarily. If preemptor has something like AKxxxx or KQJxxx he can of course lead that suit happily no matter what you say, but AQ, AJ and KJ or weaker holdings can be dangerous, so leading partner’s choice has value there. I personally do not generally McCabe with Axx or Kxx although it could be right, waiting for AQ, KQ(J) or AJT type holdings (and likely not A or K in partners suit). I’ve found it to be a valuable suggestion but definitely not a command. Simply require tolerance (xx or better) so as to allow partner to return comfortably to his suit comfortably if needed. I like the idea of using after overcalls as well, but I’d be fearful of trying that with some partners.
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
:) In the “old days”. Weren't we taught to NOT overcall at 2 level on a 5 card suit, especially when red and especially at Imps. Of course no one is that strict anymore, and you have to balance suit quality against shape—- and strength of major fragment. So we are in agreement, although you seem more emphatic than I (me?).
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard: 5D=very good diamonds sounds like a “picture bid” or NOT Fast Arrival application, which I fully endorse. I could not fathom bidding 3S on a singleton (as suggested by Mr. Zastera) or jumping to 5D with this hand and catching partner with the huge spade hand (missing 4S). As far a bidding with just an Ace, I thought that was popular now, but not by all. Perhaps Opener could bid 4H (Last Train??) over 4D to determine whether my hand was Maxi or Mini, a very grey territory. I would not destroy partnership harmony by passing a strong Jumpshift, so not an option for me.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe that Mccabe was originally constructed for weak twos. So IN THEORY it wouldn't necessarily apply to higher levels. However, my amenable partner(s) have already included it over higher preempts at my suggestion. The “painting a roadmap” drawback suggested by Steve Moese seems nowhere near as important as suggesting a safe lead (with tolerance/support for preempted suit of course). I have been using Mccabe happily for many years, and hope my partners remember it also applies at higher levels.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don’t understand why 4D should show slam interest, given that 3D is game forcing. I understand 3NT with 10xxx hearts, but What if opener has a big 2-suiter, perhaps AJxxx Ax AKQTx x, and you hold x xxx Jxxx AJxxx. That’ 8 tricks at NT and 11+ in diamonds. Bidding 3NT makes no sense, leaving the natural raise as normal choice. If opener has the big spade hand you will always wind up in spades anyway, and “taking a position” to pass a jumpshift can be partnership destroying. Also, I have been led to believe that responder always bids with an Ace in most modern styles.
July 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ken Lebensold wrote one of the most entertaining Bridge World articles ever, “Odd Bridge” in 1975. When my unit (106) asked me for some literature for their newsletter, around 1999, I contacted Mr. Lebensold and he was kind enough to allow me to reprise his terrific piece of fiction.
July 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, this problem appears to be a dud for most. I’m wondering if the voting would materially differ if the majors were reversed (4=5=3=1) or the suit qualities were vastly different, e.g. Txxxx AKJx KQx x.
July 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve: The advantage to picture jumps is that it immediately focuses on the strong trump holding (within a usually minimum or non-maximal hand) as opposed to just any minimum hand. Sometimes opener is much more concerned with trump strength for slam investigation that whether merely minimal or not. It also highlights lack of 1St/2nd round controls in other suits, helping stop in game when needed with plenty of hcps but inadequate trumps or controls. You dont have to use it often, the negative inferences also provide guidance. Another really good tool when used properly(along with Jacoby, splinters, serious 3NT, slower auctions, etc. IMO.
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with you Jeff. Picture jump to 4S with AQx Qx xxx AKxxx very descriptive. Jump to 3S to signify immediate slam interest requesting (demanding?) immediate cuebid—eg. 1S-2C-2D-3S with AJx Kxx AX Axxxx. Quiet return to just 2S (GF) for everything else.
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3rd seat fairly obvious. This was Hand 5 of Tuesday’s Common Game and analyst suggested 2H.
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nick: I agree with you that my 2D is clearly “unsound” but I gave in to temptation not wanting to miss a fit/lead and being accused of being too conservative once again. The positive result was very lucky.
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nick: Do you plan to double higher level contracts also, like 3H or 4H?
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have an agreement with all partners that the RKC ASKER must have at least one Key. If I have 3 we are missing only one, which means bid the slam according to the original intention of Blackwood. If partner is able or inclined to ASK with zero, (which I do not play) you must pass with 3 if feasible.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Doesn’t the last trick—club 4 to 5, make it partly a steppingstone?
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Flawed 2H action? Do you recommend 3H instead?
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David: Thank you for posting this as I feel my education and judgment in this area (and others) could be improved. Esko: Thank you for this analysis. Just recently I encountered a similar situation where I held Jx spades and 9-sixth of diamonds and thought, as you do, that over 2Hx I should choose 2S with 2-5 but 3D with 2-6 despite the higher level and lower scoring strain.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The “debate” sounds to me as follows:
1) It is fairly well established (check Pavlicek tables) that 16 opp. 8 has lower expectation than 12 opp 12 if declarer is not specified. How much less ? Some nonzero amount.
2) Let’s posit, as you both seem to agree, that 16 as declarer
Is advantage vs 8 as declarer.
3) No reason to expect Declarer Advantage to be greater for Declarer with 16 than for Declarer with 12, or for 12 to 8 for that matter.
4) So its really comparing edge of 12:12 over 16:8 in 1) to edge of 16Decl:8 Dummy over 8Decl:16Dummy in 2)
Now THAT’s an interesting DD simulation. Here Mr. Zastera's love of DD analysis seems useful. We can ignore declarer competence and Declarer Advantage.
July 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 147 148 149 150
.

Bottom Home Top