Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Nelson
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 76 77 78 79
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I disagree with Richard WRT rulings under the claim law that is. He would be 1000% correct under the claim law that should be.
10 hours ago
Mike Nelson edited this comment 10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I love RP's charts. The statistics pretty much fit with Morehead's thinking.They also show the overall difference in expectation isn't that much fore the same number of trumps, and 10 > 9 > 8 regardless of how they split. I would suggest you learn the criteria Morehead sets out, but don't worry about murdering your score if you get it wrong, we're talking circa 0.1 tricks for 4-4 vs. 5-3.
April 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would play this forcing by an unpassed hand.
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My rule: fp applies if and only if we bid or force to game on power.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess the answer about alert/vs. announce depends on whether Precision 1M opening 11-15 requires an alert. I believe not.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 1-4NT were RKC for hearts,I'd bid it, but it isn't so 1-2NT-any-4NT. I have tools to ask length after Jacoby but I'm not using them here: 3 keys and Q fetches 7NT from me, even if partner has only five.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not at all the same. The phone question is about conditions in the playing room, a revoke is about the actual play of the cards.
April 16
Mike Nelson edited this comment April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Exactly, West is a lot closer to pass than 4.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd like to asks a question here: is the phrase “is not obligated to do X” a synonym for “is obligated not to do X”?

An example, spades trump, heart led, you have a heart void. Now this being Bridge and not Pinochle, you are not obligated to play a spade. Does this mean you are obligated not to play a spade?
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
According to the modified Danny Kleinman count I favor, this evaluates to an 11+ pass with a small spot, while the ten would make it 12- and an opener. I would follow this at teams, but the difference is too slight to buck the field at pairs.
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hard = suit, soft = NT, with one exception. If the issue is 3NT vs. 4M with a long running major, hard = 3NT, soft = 4M.
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 102: if there is any dispute about the beer card, director gets the beer, he/she will need it.
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For clarity, I am advocating a change in the law, not interpreting existing law. As a director in 2018 I would allow or disallow the claim based on my perception of declarer's skill level.
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. The law IMHO should induce the behavior “make a complete and accurate claim statement. If this is too hard now, play another trick or so till it gets easy.” In the example, make a claim after taking the free finesse in clubs and unblocking Q. Anything less draconian will never get this behavior.
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Might depend on gender, attractiveness, and availability of partner, too.
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know it falls on deaf ears, but I would change the claim law to "…claimer loses any trick which can be lost by any legal play of the cards not excluded by the claim statement."
April 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It would not occur to me to make a claim til after I had taken the free finesse.
April 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The bidding is all South's error. Correct bid using these methods is 4, then North should just place the contract in 6.
April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Then is 1-1NT used for responder's 13+ balanced, wher siding is less much likely to matter?
April 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This sheds a whole new light on on, 10-12 HCP was explicitly said. Clear case of MI. I would say “10-12 or equivalent distribution.” or similar.
March 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 76 77 78 79
.

Bottom Home Top