Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Neal Smith
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 54 55 56 57
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cornelia, I’m always looking for a new gadget. What’s Yoder 2 ;)
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Where is he director/club owner in this discussion? Is their intent is to have a club for old folks who play American Standard only? If so, find another place to play. If not, they should be counseling this individual on better behavior.
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK, that makes sense, especially at the expert level and above. Maybe I was coming from a viewpoint of less experience than most here.
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Always interesting to see people try to build a better mousetrap, when good books are available from the finer minds in bridge (see recommendations above).
Aug. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the Tour de France, the maillot blanc and is awarded to the best-placed rider age under 26. Therefore Cycling is a sport for old folks;)
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After the Q was covered, one commentator wrote “oh well, cancel the write up” or words to that effect.
Aug. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Some players may rush their play if they have the ace, to make it look like they don't have a problem. Some players may make an involuntary slight huddle when they don't have the ace, while when they have the ace they will never do this. This isn't exactly a coffee-house. It is a natural attempt to be deceptive when one realizes that your opponent has a problem. ”

Whoa. Altering tempo in an attempt to be deceptive is a violation of law 73D2.
July 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Try the General Tso’s chicken. It’s better than Chow’s.
July 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
28 is a perfect number!
July 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Jack O'Diamonds is a hard card to play” - Fairport Convention
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
James, that’s American notation. You would likely write 4+1 instead.
July 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is west’s X Rosenkranz?
July 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If there was a BIT, why wasn’t the director called to the table. Waiting until the compare is just asking for a dispute about whether there was a BIT.
July 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Little late to the party here, but I keep thinking about this board. From the OP: “Opening leader could have defeated the contract at a critical point later in the defense playing for declarer to hold only 3 spades. Instead based on the information he had received, he played for a different chance hoping declarer had made a mistake in the play of the hand. As a result the contract was made.”

So what I’m wondering about is, how do you have a board where defender’s play sets the contract if declarer holds 4 spades, but lets it make if declarer holds only 3 spades. After all, we’d normally expect an extra trump to be better for declarer.


North
♠ K95
♥ J76
♦ QT654
♣ 95
West. East
♠ T643. ♠ AJ2
♥ K98532. ♥ -
♦ - ♦ AKJ3
♣ T72. ♣ KQJ863
South
♠ Q87
♥ AQT4
♦ 9872
♣ A4

I entered the board into Deep Finesse. Double dummy, 4 can always be set. It may seem that the actual opening lead (7) costs a trick, but no lead is better.

Here are a couple likely lines for declarer:

A) 3 rounds of s, discarding all of dummy’s s. Next the K for a ruffing finesse. Say South covers. Ruff in dummy, ruff a , Cash the Q, ruff a , ruff a , and the A makes 9 tricks, but there is no path to a 10th trick. In this line, South never gets the lead with a decision to make, as stated in the OP.

B) Discard a from dummy on the opening lead, then lead the K. Say South wins. A trump lead now lets the contract through, as declarer can simply pull trumps. But a trump from Q87 seems dubious at best.

C) Discard a from dummy on the opening lead, ruff a and lead a trump to the J. If South wins the Q, any return leads to a set, while a trump return guarantees down 2.

D) Discard a from dummy on the opening lead, then lead a low trump from hand. North wins the T with his K, and any return is good. Say he returns a trump. East must win the A (the J leads to -2). Now declarer can lead the K. South wins the A, but now the A lets the contract through (declarer ruffs, cashes 2 s, ruffs a and leads dummy’s last trump. If instead South cashes the trump Q followed by the A, that’s 4 tricks.

Then I reran the analysis, giving East a 4th trump in place of a low , and North only 2 trump. Now a lead gives an overtrick, and setting the contract is quite unlikely.

Lot of extra thought here, but I am no closer to enlightenment.
June 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True if NS playing big club, but we aren’t told that.
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the formatting assist!
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here is the full layout. Round 17, board 5.

North
K95
J76
QT654
95

West. East
T643. AJ2
K98532. -
- AKJ3
T72. KQJ863

South
Q87
AQT4
9872
A4
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
N4 - “West agreed that he erred; it had to be correct to play the King at trick four.” Wait. Isn’t this a standard restricted choice position? If so, finessing was correct. Doesn’t change the ruling, but what’s up with West’s comment and why didn’t anyone object to it?

R1 - if I were West I would be very unhappy with the split ruling. Keeping the danger hand off lead is learned by intermediates and should be automatic for players with 400 MPs. I’m in that general range and it’s an easy 460 if I’m playing it, so table result stands. Yes, there was a poll taken, but I can’t believe the results reflect a serious study of the hand by the two pollees who got it wrong.

R2 - asking about the auction before a final pass when partner will be on lead is a blatant attempt to circumvent proper procedure. South should know better. Even if he now suspects a missed alert, the time for him to speak up is after the face-down opening lead. Automatic procedural penalty, player memo or 3 lashes with a wet noodle, take your pick
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or passes. With 1-3 in the minors.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apparently that’s too sensible, or the question wouldn’t have been asked.
June 17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 54 55 56 57
.

Bottom Home Top