Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Neal Smith
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wait. The royals play bridge?? Will, Kate, Harry and Meghan for mixed teams! Now that would be great publicity for the game!
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For our non-US readers, the US federal constitution, Article 1, Section 10, reads:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

So it would seem Stevens had a solid basis for his dissent.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just count your blessings that they don't have a penalty X available in direct seat.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good comment, David. That's the fundamental reason I had a problem at the table.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nope. Dummy still has the 7, so leading the cannot create a trump promotion even if you exchange the K for the 4.
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Before deciding whether I would X 1NT, I pondered my opening lead. While a might work well (when partner has a real suit) it also could be disastrous when declarer holds, say, KT98. But it would be a shame to lead a major if partner didn't find the switch when he gets in. I concluded that I really don't want to be on lead against 1NT (X or not), so I would X in hopes that NS would run.

My question is, would w-c players be thinking about the opening lead during the auction, or is this simply wasted mental energy, given that 1NT may not be the final contract?
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congrats on your retirement, Fred. Now that you're retired, you'll probably need some bridge partners. Just PM me;)
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In defense of our director, he almost always makes correct rulings, communicated in a way that educates rather than punishes. This day, he was directing 2 sections, including a 5 1/2 table 99er game, and also filling in as a player in the open game. Trying to do too much, perhaps.

I was the one who put a D in with my hearts, and I'm ok with taking some lumps for my mistake, even if the ruling wasn't correct.

Purpose of this poll was just to educate myself on the rules. Thanks all who responded.
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you, Dave. I was looking for the right word; now I know!

Folks may have guessed - director ruled a 2 trick adjustment. One trick for the revoke, and a second trick because “the 6 could not take a trick in the normal course of play.” Asked to cite a rule, he refused, although he may have been thinking of 64C1

“When, after any established revoke, including
those not subject to trick adjustment, the
Director deems that the non-offending side
is insufficiently compensated by this Law for
the damage caused, he shall assign an
adjusted score.”
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I cannot get more details about this hand from BBO Vugragh Archive.” Being a curious sort, I wondered why. Turns out the bidding and play for this session are in the archive starting with board 19. I guess the VG Operator was a bit late getting set up.

Pretty nifty job of giveaway by the South declarer, who had 2 trump tricks by force and 3 side aces.
July 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or E4?
July 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had a partner tell me my overcall of a weak 2 showed 16+ HCP, LOL.
June 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wouldn't West have bid the same with Q instead of Q? Or with void and another ?
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's so automatic for me that I wasn't able to answer until I focused on your question in a recent club game. First thing is, when I sort, the honors (and short suits) go toward the middle of my hand, e.g. 56QA A6 AK97 T54. Then the math is not done by suits, but by finding groups of nearby honors. QAA - that's 10. AK - that's 7. 17.
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the links, Peter.

Georgiana, David Mossop may be the sponsor, but he was at the table for the decisive 3rd session of the final so as much a part of the victory as the rest.
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well done indeed! Coming out on top in a tough, tough field. Probably just my ignorance, but the Mossops players are new to me. Brits, of course. Background on them, anyone?
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well I was sure this article was supposed to be “tongue-in-cheek” except OP forgot the emoji, and it's not April 1.
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gosh. If I had used UI as blatantly as South, I would not be posting the hand here. I'd be hiding under a rock.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No novice is ready for the concept that a bid can show shortness. So I abstained.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A lot of comments to the effect that a 3-way final day is the problem. What everyone is overlooking is that D22 also uses a RR scored by VPs for a 4-way final day - depends on the number of entries. That's why I said above that the CoC should prohibit VP scoring on the final day. Maybe, to be clearer - the final day should be KO.

So, I move to amend OP point #2 as follows:
2. Best practice is for the final day of the event to come down to an even number of teams, 2 or 4, DECIDED BY 2-way KO matches.
June 19
.

Bottom Home Top