Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mario Fonzo
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And yet already there are some people to whom this pass was not repugnant.
July 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We could always come up with one.
July 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In fact, to allay any fears that this is about a case of an unusual action “working” or something. Such is NOT the case.
July 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A crime against bridge, not a crime in the literal sense :)
July 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps he WAS tanked, but he did not balk during the bidding.
July 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And let's face it - Opener Jump Shifts are 100% forcing as far as I know, and yet people (great players) have been known to pass them, so …
July 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like it when people say what they really feel :)
July 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Their heads must be spinning reading this thread.
July 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This highlights the importance of the answer to the question “what is standard?” Most of us don't have the luxury to discuss every minute detail of our cards before we play, and we don't have 350 pages of system notes with every nuance having been discussed.

I sympathize greatly with this issue, although I do believe a reverse promising another bid is “standard” so I gave West all the blame.

It's just like people misspelling words - why would they look them up in a dictionary when they're certain they have it right? Same thing in bridge - if you assume something is standard and that your partner knows what that standard is - you play/bid according to that understanding.

Most of us MUST have to rely on having some grasp of what standard is. Most interesting to me are issues where you are playing with a peer partner but have NOT discussed everything in detail, which is most of us.

It's all well and good when pairs post “well, WE do this that or the other.” That's nice, but what is considered standard in the absence of specific agreement? Isn't that of crucial import to the vast majority of us?
July 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK, this opens a debate as to whether this actually does call for a diamond lead or whether it doesn't.

Does it or doesn't it?

Let's say partner has a pretty good hand but a lousy diamond suit and an outside AK - he's to lead a diamond from Jxxxxx?

Is this treatment documented anywhere?
July 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An astounding statistic. That 95 year olds only have a less than 17% chance of dying in the coming year. I'd say they'd think that meant they had 83% odds of making it through another year, and I doubt many bookies would be interested in that sort of action.

I don't come close to believing that a 95 year old person has 83% odds of living another full year. Who wouldn't LOVE those odds at even much younger ages than utter decrepitude?

Would you make such a bet with your hard earned money? I sure as hell wouldn't.
July 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK. So, what will partner typically have for his overcall?

AKJxx and an outside card as some sort of expectation here? Then wouldn't he lead his suit anyway? Or KQT9xx diamonds and Ax of another suit. He's leading a diamond here too is he not?

Even if he has KQ on the outside he's going to lead his suit in preference to that as well. Just trying to understand what seems like a very risky proposition to me.

If they'd go down one on a diamond lead, they'll go down one doubled or undoubled, and isn't the inherent risk of doubling at IMPs so great that it isn't worth perhaps turning +50 into +100?
July 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is there some implied suggestion to lead a diamond because of the double?
July 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe John will enlighten us.
July 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many partnerships are more casual in nature than allow for “philosophical understandings.”

2 does not promise a 6th.
July 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's still less than most of us pay per month for the Internet… just to put it into perspective.
July 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding something. It looks like you would always bid a 4 card major over 2 since “2 does nto deny a 4 car major.”

“I would bid a 4 card major if I wanted to find a fit in a major…” Isn't that a usual goal in the auction phase? Are there some notable exception hand patterns where you would not be interested in finding a major suit fit?

July 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your second paragraph pretty much says it all. Thanks.
July 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice one.
July 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed, an oversight on my part not to have included it.
July 18, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top