Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Rosenberg
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mark R: “I love Watson's book and call it The Bible.”

I had never read Watson's book till a couple of years ago, when I was looking for good books on card play to recommend to juniors. I had heard great things about the book.
I was extremely disappointed. I thought it had clear errors and was packed with flaws. I strongly preferred “The Rodwewll Files”.

I think people believing everything written in Watson's book is dangerous for bridge. I think people believing everything written in the Bible (ANY Bible) is dangerous for life.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
'I'm not going to do anything stupid'…
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit: “ (which could matter if declarer's clubs are K10x). ”

I was talking about the OP line where declarer had already played a to the king.

Kurt: “can't declarer's hand be AJxx Kxx AKxx KQ?”

I think if that's the hand a squeeze would still operate because of the diamonds - in the reds if you have them, a triple squeeze on partner if he does. I think your example should have been AJxxx, Kxx, AKx, KQ

I was talking about the OP line where declarer had already played a to the king. And thae author in a comment said East had split - no need to do that if looking at 11 clubs.

However, your implied point that West, with Q9xx, cannot lose by playing the Q and might win (on my example hand) is correct.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sturat: “Literally nobody plays that third round double as takeout.”

No expert plays it as ‘penalty’ either. It's merely ‘extra values in context’.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wendel;in: When the level is this high, passing a TO double is far from uncommon. I don't believe this double suggests any more offensive shape than 3 did. In fact, I'd say among all possibilities that offensive shape for 3 is slightly greater.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David B: “In that case, you should adopt my line for the overtrick rather than yours”

Yes. And it would be especially clever to lead to Q with AKQ…
The only problem is the auction - bidding slam after that 5 bid. Need to change that, but otherwise I think you're on to something.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The reason I find my hand “interesting”.

PLaying Standard responses to Gerber there is no problem. However if you play 1430 responses (as I believe many do) you have an ‘impossible’ problem over a 4H response.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John A: “you are wanting to assign damage even if there is no damage to affect behavior.”

I see damage. The damage is that, some percentage of the time, South doubled in tempo and then the OP North successfully passed. And then there REALLY is no redress.

Wendelin: “For me it is enough that players dont profit from the BIT.”

Do you feel certain the OP North did not? If so, by all means rule in his favor.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually he'd make ELEVEN triocks if J dropped - according to comments made by the author of the OP
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not really getting that because if partner doesn't have SJ, he will now be squeezed in blacks,

Anyway, my point was that leading from hand gives you more chances.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John A: I don't want to be ‘judge’. I want to deter players from breaking tempo in tempo-sensitive situations. I think, if people stopped doing that the game would overall be better.
If a mistake is going to be made in a ruling, I'd far rather the mistake be one that deter such actions as opposed to letting a pair ‘get away’ with something.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David B: I'd have understood if somebody said there was a zero chance they would play the king…
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about the fact that, if partner also has J, West wouldn't want to expose his side to a squeeze that doesn't exist?
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jon G: That would be down 2 - East has two clubs to cash. If declarer cashes Q before he ‘cashes’ the 10, he can be down 3.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Said what?
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What could ever happen that would induce you to play for stiff J?
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks. Funny how I ‘remembered’ spades. I remember thinking at the time I read about it that 4N was silly because could have been facing one ace and could start with a control bid.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's clear, at least to me, that the benefit of the doubt should accrue to the non-offending side. Why should they lose the opportunity to guess right?
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At least you didn't say ‘for a Scotchman’.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don't tell me what they're drinking - I can guess.
July 10
.

Bottom Home Top