Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Rosenberg
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So was your partner being especially annoying in the post-mortem? Wasn't it 100% clear that East had messed up - and only East?
Feb. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Al L: “This should lead to further discussions on our Anti-Doping regulations.”

Here's my part of the discussion: End all anti-doping regulations.
Feb. 27
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
All East - unless West posted the OP. Then all West.
Feb. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robert S: “For instance what should responder bid with Kxxxx Kxx xx xxx?”

Well, for starters, he shouldn't bid 1
Feb. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David B: Turn thy pronouns on thyself…
Feb. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First hand is not a 3 bid if played as preemptive (as many do).

Second hand, East would have xxx, K10xx, xxxx, xx. It's possible he would not bid 3 with that - you are unfavorable (so save unlikely), have some spade length and partner is still there. In fact, especially playing against Europeans, I've often noticed players not raising overcalls on light HCP - when I would.
Feb. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's not much of a 4 bid - at least to me. Also, not clear to me if declarer would play low on club. Also, not clear to me if declarer would make if you duck the club.
Anyway, I think that players are generally willing to ‘look stupid’ when they THINK the hand is about overtricks. (Sometimes intentionally, sometimes due to lack of thought, sometimes because they don't know what the hand is.) So it's possible that East ducked.
But my point is that, generally, a declarer (or defender) who KNOWS what the hand is about, will not be willing to risk the contract for overtricks (or undertricks).
Maybe Phil is a player who would never duck with Q. But that doesn't mean this declarer, who does not know Phil, has any real idea of that.
Feb. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Rising with A only gains when West led a singleton ”

How about when leader has Q, 65, AQxxxxx, AQx? Or Q, J96, AQ10xxx, AQx?
Feb. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David B: And with (say) Axx, xx, Ax, AKQJxx I do what?
Feb. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dave B: “…I can't have singleton …”

What is your call with (say) Jxx, x, AQx, AKQJxx? Or thousands of other hands?
Feb. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In practice, almost nobody is going to risk the contract by repeating the finesse. Not looking stupid is high up (probably too high up) on almost everybody's list of priorities.
Feb. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had both. Because I feel sometimes you just want to quickly see on what trick a certain card was discarded - and that's easier seen from the list. But I know that, for most, the “Next” button is the better way.
Feb. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not seeing an end position on this hand where that could matter - but I like thought in general.
Feb. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about if the opponent led it. Can you think about a real problem then?
Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David L: I believe there are many dilemmas we do face that we don't know how to solve, but could with more knowledge. Even more so, I believe there are many more ways to create dilemmas (of which we are not now cognizant) for our opponents.
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul H: “I'm not sure what other bid you're suggesting. Regardless, thanks for the pointless implied criticism.”

Pretty funny (to me) because I think John H's comment was spot on.

I think most experts would (correctly) bid 4 over 3. And I think many would treat 4N over 3 as quantitative, rather than KC.
This latter suggests a possible meaning for partner's auction (though, due you your ‘tone’, I don't think it's the actual one).
Partner, thinking 4N was natural, bid 5 over 4N. Then, because he has 5-card , bid 6 over 5 (probably unsure of what 5 meant).
If partner has AQJxx + AQxxx in the blacks, and Ax + A in the reds, we'd want to be in 7. Whether I should bid that over 6 in the OP auction I do not know (and was not asked).
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David B: “We already know how to play bridge.”. You think “we” know. I think you're wrong. I think you're very wrong.
What IS clear is that “we” know hot to create AI to play chess and go above our level (which I think is not too bad) while we are so far unable to create AI that plays at our level (which, I think, is not good).
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Andy B: “What difficulties do you envisage, Michael? ”

I said there is a solution, but requires a lot of work.

You have done a little - with your 2om/1N being extras with 4-3(5-1), but still have problems. You can do better.

Rather than just “muddle through” after 4th suit, you can do work to ameliorate the problem.

And you don't cover one of the harder problems; 1m-1, 1-2N. Perhaps you play XYZ but, if so, that also requirs much work - at least as much as fine-tuning Standard.
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That “could have known” thing always made little sense to me. You ALWAYS “could have known”. It really means “should have known” - but I think the lawmakers felt that wording was too much of an ‘accusation’, so went with “could have known”.'
When you think with QJ doubleton you certainly ‘should have known’ - since the whole idea was to play the more deceptive card.
When you're thinking about a bridge play of finessing the 9, I don't think it's fair to say you ‘should have known’ - you were just thinking legitimately about a legitimate bridge play. I don't think we want to ‘police’ thinking about a legitimate bridge play. I'm happy to ‘police’ ‘thinking’ - when the intent is simply to deceive.
Feb. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff L: “I surely hope that the comment about ”criticizing North“ is not directed at me. Because if it was, the comment is totally misdirected. I criticized no one. I merely reported…”

Of course I know that was not your intention. But knowing what had been said elsewhere, and seeing this one hand posted, I felt it might lead some to think ‘Aha! This is the hand they messed up on.’
So I just wanted to correct the impression that I felt some might have formed. Not your fault in any way.
Feb. 21
.

Bottom Home Top