Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Rosenberg
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 282 283 284 285
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the hand to which Eduard was referring was an opening lead by Pabis-Ticci, playing with D'Alelio.
Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Craig Z: All tha“Here's a way to handle advancer's 4=5 and 5=4 majors, find 4=4 major suit fits, and discover if overcaller has a 5 card major”
For those that don't play, and don't want to play, a form of Puppet Stayman, all of this can be done via Regular Stayman with some slight variants.
Sept. 22
Michael Rosenberg edited this comment Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Looks like too much science for 3. Especially since I don't see how you handle advancer having 4-4 in majors; or 5-4. You can handle one of 4-5 or 5-5 via 3 then 3 - but not both.
Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I found this news nauseating. It made my skin crawl. Of course, I fully support Marion and the OP.

If the WBF permits Fantoni-Nunes OR Fisher=Schwartz to play in a WBF event, I think it's clearly time to break away from the WBF and form a better ‘world’ organization - one that cares about not allowing unrepentant cheats in our game. There is no place for those players in our game.
Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As long as your ‘reading’ is of the opponents only, and as long as your ‘bluffing’ is via legal bids and plays, and as long as you give no extraneous information to partner (UI), then poker is a legitimate and (for me) interesting part of bridge. Albeit not a large part.
Bridge has EVERYTHING. Whatever is in life is in bridge.
Sept. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bob H: “Do your clients like it when you do that?” I think they like that they are being treated with the same respect as any other partner.
If one never does what you term “self-destruct”, it's a sign that one tends to take advantage of UI. I almost never play a major tournament without at least one such hand.

Louis: If one is ‘right’ about the UI, that doesn't seem to be what actually happens. But, if it did, it would be good fortune - just like bidding a bad contract that happens to luckily make. The odds were in the opponents' favor.
If my opponent got a good result by being ethical, I would feel no negativity toward that person.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bob H: “you know that if you try for game and it works, your result will be rolled back”

Again, this is the crux. You do NOT “know” that. I guarantee if you play against me and my clone, and you have a reasonable game try hand, that there will be NO Director call. I know there are others who think as I do - quite likely many others.
So your choice, against me, is to take your ‘sure thing and make a GT, or to pass and tell partner that, had he bid in tempo, you would have reached game. I would call that giving your partner (and, if they needed it, your opponents) an ’education'.
I think we want to eliminate (or at least minimize) BIT in tempo-sensitive situations. I think ‘my way’ heads toward that goal.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bob H: “”All in would nullify this sort of thing.“

So would a rule that says you should make your normal lead and let the directors adjudicate the UI.”

Not a valid comparison. Just because somebody SAYS it's their “normal” action, that doesn't ipso facto make it so. One still has to judge the veracity/self-servingness of the player.

Whereas, in “all-in”, there are zero problems - nothing to ‘judge’. No subjectivity - true ‘nullification’. Of course, it would not exactly be bridge anymore…
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bob H: “To..make a call that you know will not be rolled back even though you suspect it is probably wrong also is imo gaming the rules.”

How can you say someone is “gaming the rules” if they are doing what they legitimately believe that's what the Laws suggest they should do?

“The majority of the bridge world believes… that the burden is on the player at the table to adjust his call from normal to a logical alternative that is contra-indicated by the UI.”

Don't they believe that because that's what the Laws suggest?

“..many people will tell you the laws are clear on this issue but the fact is they are not. ”

Well, that's the crux. What do the Laws say? I am not a ‘Law-quoter’. Hopefully, somebody can come on here and cite the Law that the “majority believes” to prove their point. Then you can attempt to demonstrate a logical way to interpret those words differently, or cite some other Law that might bolster your case (if such a Law exists).

It would also be nice if those responsible for writing the Law about “logical alternatives” would come on here and clearly state who is correct as to the ‘intention’ of the Law..

“I suspect that someday they will be clarified.”

Amen. (But I think, to the majority, they are already clear enough on this point.)
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it ought to be. But the Laws are not clear here. There is a prohibition against “staring”.

My belief has long been that whatever you can ‘get’ from the opponents when looking at your cards and the table, and seeing what is bid/played is fine. Also, if asking or answering a question you can look at their face. But you generally don't raise your eyes just so as you can ‘observe’ your opponent.
And you NEVER look at partner. That's one reason I greatly prefer screens.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John C: I have no further comment. I just wanted to apologize for calling you “John L.” before.
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John L: My feeling was not that my line was clearly best. I don't think I ever said, or even suggested that. Whichever finesse you correctly guess to take, you CAN always make.
I simply thought which finesse I take was dependent on a few small factors.
One factor was that I have an extra chance, (Kx with LHO) where now the double squeeze becomes a lock. It was that small extra chance that removed
Another factor was my instictive dislike of taking a finesse and still not being cold, rather than possibly relying on later card-reading
Another factor was that I thought the ‘card-reading’ might be easier. You say “Assuming QD holds then this wins by a double squeeze if RHO had five diamonds, otherwise you need the spade finesse”.
But, assuming that RHO has sensibly gotten rid of K, how do you know which to do? In the 2-card ending, we know LHO has 10 as one of his cards. RHO follows to a spade. Is his last card Q? Or is it the missing ?
I see this position as being less ‘readable’ (all their cards were sort of ‘forced’) than RHO's discard on the penultimate trump after A, ruff, J, trump.
I think this increased readability is a key factor.

“Still, it seems to me that even I read the discards with my usual 100% accuracy, the complex line still doesn't improve my chances.”

Either finesse is a favorite (because RHO has more pointed cards). Prsumanly, each one has an equal chance of success.
Even if you disagree with my readability argument (which, right now, I don't think you should), I'm not understanding how the extra chance of Kx (referenced by both of us) does not “improve your chances”.
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I understand the desire to protect club players who are not familiar with Multi so i do not diagree wiith the ACBL position of limiting the use of Multi.”

Club players is one thing. What is the idea of not allowing Multi 2 in National Pair Games? The ACBL is nuts in this area.
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“ I personally see little difference between what you call ”sloppy“ and ”slimy“.

”Sloppy“ is without malice aforethought. ”Slimy“ is WITH malice aforethought.

”People who claim they are unaware of their obligations are often kidding themselves or lying.“

Those who are not lying are ”sloppy“. Those who are lying are ”slimy".
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Some are just ”sloppy“ about their ethics–e.g., they will take advantage of UI if they think they can get away with it.”

I wouldn't think of that as “sloppy”. I'd think of “sloppy” as someone who simply doesn't think about what his/her obligations might be. They just don't ever want to go down that road.
Whereas I'd describe what Bob H describes as closer to ‘slimy’.
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tim G: Good point. Sorry.
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tim G. I don't think anybody suggested that. For all the OP knew there was also a defense in a WBF database.
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They don't have to furnish. You can consult your own defense - either from the ACBL database or your own written version.
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David B: “I am prepared to wager that there is no layout on which taking a trump finesse is necessary to make the contract…”

How much?
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was this partnership EVER in sync?
Sept. 16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 282 283 284 285
.

Bottom Home Top