Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nick Krnjevic
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think Seymon D. came second in ‘92 ( to a strong French team) in harness with Rosenberg, who psyched on the first board if I recall correctly, testing a pet theory.

He won the ’88 Olympiad with Meckwell and the Texans against an Austrian team that had made its mark in more ways than one in the '85 BB.
June 15, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit - congratulations on both a first-class article and a very impressive system. I suspect that you face hyperactive interference from the opponents when they are at favorable vulnerability. Do you play the same system at all colours, or, like some big-clubbers, have you found that it may be preferable to change methods when red v white?
May 8, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm with Aviv, but recognize that my perception of courtesy may well be different from that held by others.

Perhaps this issue should be the object of a separate thread and a poll.
April 27, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bobby - I suspect the *number* of first class international opponents that US teams/pairs have faced in the past 15 years is likely substantially greater than the number faced by the preceding generation of US teams/pairs.

Consequently, ‘ability to win very high-level titles’ seems to be an awkward tool to use to compare the ability of the relevant post-1976 generations of US bridge players since the fewer current US teams/pairs winning world-class titles may well reflect the rest of the world catching up rather than the US declining.



April 27, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jan - being Canadian, my interest in this thread is purely academic; however, after reading the various posts, I must confess to being in awe of both the scope and duration of the astonishing effort you have put into the ITT.

A fellow Canadian, Mike Myers, could easily have been referring to you when he popularized the phrase “we are not worthy….”
April 24, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you think the bulk of the field is playing a strong no-trump then playing the Ace immediately seems right.

Assuming the lead was 4th best, West has a decent 5 card spade suit). If he also has the K of diamonds he will likely bid 1(or more) spades at many tables. No-trump will be played by North, and most declarers will play West to have the diamond K on the auction (particularly if West, as is likely, plays the Q or K of spades at trick 1).

And if West does not have the KD, and passes, there is a good chance East would not have lead a spade from a 3 card suit against a 1C-3NT auction. And if he did lead a spade because the suit is 4-4 the finesse is always right.

So it seems your best play to cater to what happened at the majority of the other tables is to win the Ace and try and grab all your tricks.
April 9, 2013
Nick Krnjevic edited this comment April 9, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John - to make this truly meaningful I think you also need to find out the current age of each responder.

How to get that info is a whole separate issue :-)
April 7, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve - would it be fair to say that your analysis suggests (amongst other things) that we should be looking for as many ways as possible to show 2 suited hands, regardless of strength? For example, would we be better positioned in competitive auctions if we replaced our single-suiter weak 2 bids with, e.g., Dutch-style Muiderberg 2 bids showing a weak major-minor hand (5 in the bid suit and 4+ in a minor), and adopt Wagner (the always weak version of Multi) for single-suited major suit preempts?
March 29, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry Neill - the link (now corrected) should have read as follows:

http://www.webridge.fr/91/Infos_Magazine/Interviews/j-r_vernes.htm
March 13, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Vernes seems to have spent over a decade fine-tuning his theory.

In an interview given to Webridge in September 2000, Vernes explained that while he began thinking about total trick theory in 1955, and made reference to same in articles published as of 1958, it was not until 1966 that he committed “the Law” to print in its current form.

Vernes identifies Jean-Marc Roudinesco, Jean Besse and Jose Le Dentu as early disciples who supported and popularized his theory.

The French-language interview can be found here:

http://www.webridge.fr/91/Infos_Magazine/Interviews/j-r_vernes.htm

March 13, 2013
Nick Krnjevic edited this comment March 13, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice D play at trick 5.

Table action seems to strongly favor ruffing high.

Given your description of the opps, I doubt RHO expected you to play as you did.

So while I cheerfully expect that RHO, holding T8xx of trumps, won't have much trouble working out to pitch a heart, I'd be very surprised if he can do so without a mild break tempo.



March 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit - I'd be interested to hear how often you believe a partnership could do this before an alertable partnership agreement will be deemed to exist.

For what's it worth, my sense is that the answer should be ‘a very small handful’ otherwise we're starting to wander down a rather slippery slope.
Feb. 19, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
About 15 years ago what was then Canada's most effective partnership, Mark Molson (“Moon”) and Boris Baran (“Bo”), bid efficiently to a small slam in clubs over which their opponents took a save in their 13 card-fit.

When Bo made a forcing pass, implying 1st round control in the opponents' suit, Moon bid the cold 7 clubs, only to see the opponents save at the seven level.

At this point the rot set in.

Holding a void in the opps. suit, Moon not unreasonably decided that Bo's forcing pass was based on the ace of that suit, so he shot out 7 no-trump which was smartly doubled.

Eager to grab their seven cashing tricks, the opponents serendipitously led out of turn, which momentarily transformed +2000 into -2930 since declarer had 13 tricks in the side-suits.

Unfortunately for Canada's finest, before Moon could bar the led suit, Bo tabled his hand as the dummy, thereby ratifying the opening lead.

The title of the next day's bulletin was “Molson Brews While Baran Stews”……
Feb. 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Fred - 3 questions:

a) do you cut back on consumption of the grape at tournaments?

b) 700+ pages of system can be daunting - do you occasionally suffer from ‘fear of system’ such that you'll make a practical leap to the likely contract rather than torture partner with a particularly byzantine and infrequently used sequence (perhaps the answer to this is related to question ‘a’), and does Kit also adopt a practical approach (mind you, given the nature of the autopsies he prepares for your benefit I suspect he looks forward with keen anticipation to testing pard's knowledge of system)?

c) what stakes were in issue in the “Liz bet” that impelled such an expenditure of imagination/effort?


Jan. 17, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael - unless I have misunderstood your point (a distinct possibility)it seems that Bobby's sequence should generally guarantee a high diamond honor - most likely a doubleton - else there is no point to keeping 3NT in play opposite a hand that bid 3D (denying solid diamonds).

This is an interesting inference since SW seems to have drawn precisely the contrary conclusion.

This is also yet another example of why this game is so challenging.
Jan. 9, 2013
Nick Krnjevic edited this comment Jan. 9, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Am a bit surprised by the director calls on both this hand and, to a lesser degree, by the one involving Deas/Radin.

Would be interested to know if top-flight players in other countries are similarly litigious when competing for their national title.
June 27, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Amen.
June 24, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Surprising to see that Auken-Von Arnim are not playing for Germany.
June 14, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Henry - given Sartaj's somewhat casual reply to Eugene's first comment, can you explain why average numbers of imps generated from oceans of data are relevant. Unless I've misunderstood Manning's article (which is a live possibility, isn't the answer dependent on the relative difference in skill between the two teams?
June 12, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The French have a wonderful expression - ‘dialogue des sourds’ (dialogue of the deaf) - that aptly describes the 2 main opposing views expressed in this thread.

Surely those who criticize Meck can recognize that his opponents were in breach of the Laws, and acknowledge that he was legally entitled to call the director.

And surely those who champion Meck can recognize that if - as eyewitness Tom Peters describes - Meckwell proceeded to use their *own* copy of a custom-made Multi Defence then Meck's director call was morally bush-league, regardless of its legality.
March 26, 2012
.

Bottom Home Top