Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Kopera
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 470 471 472 473
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“If partner’s right hand opponent passes, then:

2♣: If partner has ♥ & ♣, prefers ♣s with a tolerance for ♦s
2♦: If partner has ♠ & ♦, prefers ♦ with a tolerance for ♥s
2♥: If partner has ♥ & ♣, prefers ♥s with a tolerance for ♠s
2♠: If partner has ♠ & ♦, prefers ♠s with a tolerance for ♣s”

Stopped reading at this point…
3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed, that answer invariably leads to “what's standard?” by me.
3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is a good read…iirc it was about the nuances of the hesitations, what the systemic problems might be.
3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“1♥ could also be a psych which they did more often that you would expect.”

IIRC (it has been a long time since I played it) it was systemic (2-5?), 1-2NT was invitational opposite a psych, 1-3NT to play opposite a psych.
3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hypothetical: declarer has played to make dummy good, leads toward dummy and claims the rest. Is it “good form” to show your cards (assuming no revoke)? How often does that happen?
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And if the explanation were correct, and instead that East had forgotten their agreement?
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Heck, why not limit the entries and hold an auction?
5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why would I go to the Nationals for a chance to play with the masses? No, (for me) the only reason is to play against the best. For now, I'm lucky if I can attend every now and then (and even then not for the whole thing). With the proposed change, now and then would drop to never. Is that the idea…or just a fringe benefit?
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why the administration permits clear bidding problems as articles is beyond me. Do we really want to go back to having all bidding problems as articles?
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Losing 2 s is consistent with the claim statement…losing 1 isn't.
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Presumably having passed for systemic reasons, I see no reason not to respond 1NT (since partner knows I might have this much).
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please cite your source…
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I use the form I judge is best.”

Well, isn't that special
7 hours ago
Michael Kopera edited this comment 7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure why he even saw the A in West…
8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Routinely” could also be parsed as:

If you do any of the following: Routinely

a) open hands with fewer than 10 HCP
b) preempt with very weak (frequently worse than Qxxxxx) suits
c) make overcalls with fewer than 6 HCP at the one-level
d) with fewer than 10 HCP at the two-level
e) with fewer than five cards in the suit named at the two-level you need to pre-alert.

“to routinely” (in the original) modifying everything subsequent, neither “to” nor “routinely” repeated…
8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought that (at least in general) negative inferences were not alertable.
14 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Idee fixe, mindlock – happens all the time, very hard to recover from (for me, at least).
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“so you get information from opposition and you see on the card it disagrees with his explanation…”

1. It was stated just above that there was no convention card at the table.

2. Having been given information, why would one check the convention card anyway?
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So at matchpoints, it is takeout?
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I call it common courtesy…”

That could suggest that to not do so is discourteous…
April 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 470 471 472 473
.

Bottom Home Top