Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Paul Holmes
1 2 3 4 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“up to 500 finalists (all expenses paid!).” Wow. Though I wonder what this means exactly…

Looks to me like the prize money would be distributed to the finalists who are playing on-site in China in November. I wouldn't want to ch**t in China… punishments are likely to be more severe than many Westerners would expect.
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This one?
https://www.bridgehands.com/M/Mississippi_Heart_Hand.htm
probably no, doesn't quite fit the description.
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe you should have volunteered that you would have bid 3NT if you weren't barred. Or 5C. Or 4S. Just chosen at random, since after all, you're barred. Seems only fair that opps ought to get some fun made-up information after trying to enforce a made-up rule.
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought this was going to be about how the long-legged among us can get more physical space at the table. Oh, how I love when I get N/S assignment up against a wall, with space to shove my chair back a foot or two…
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Probably refers to the ACBL “Player of the Decade” list generated in the year referenced. This is the current list:

https://web3.acbl.org/mpraces/?year=2019&race=POD&showDeceased=Y
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not having an agreement about whether 13-15 was weak or strong? So South doubled intending your strong notrump defense (something including a long minor) and North thought it was penalties? After the diamond lead from South, I think -480 is just about given.
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ODR = Offense-defense ratio
May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought a Swan was (7411).
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My preference in situations like this, whether or not it's “legal”, is to offer to explain what the bid shows, but to say “you should ask partner about <1NT here, whatever is relevant> first.” They almost always do. If they don't, I'm happy that I've divested my responsibility for full disclosure.
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't the right question “If you had been told that North intended double as takeout, but that South forgot that was their agreement and believed double was penalty, what would you have done?” That gives both the authorized information from the table (what south said and did) and the correct information (i.e. the actual agreement). Seems like West believed this was what s/he was entitled to, and I think it's correct.
April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks DB for the reference to Mott the Hoople's “All the Way from Memphis”; I'd only heard Brian May's cover.
March 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“3 5+/5+ minors at least invitational” but forcing? Seems strange.
March 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@DJ I made a poor choice of example hand… AQJxxx / A / x / AQJTx?
Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry to say, it was hypothetical. I held the 2 opener and was wondering after the hand if bidding 6 without the K could mean something useful. I was thinking along the lines of Andrew Yeckel above… it would have to be a hand where partner did the right thing with or without the K. Something like AQJxx / AK / x / AQJTx; without K, just play 6, but with K (and all keys) 7 looks good.

Seemed like a possible way to recover from the 4NT that people seem to dislike. :)
Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure we'd be on solid ground here. I _think_ they would be “showing” as you imply; i.e. 6 over 6 would show the diamond king (and all keys).
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMPs. I agree re: bidding 2NT. I don't disagree re: 4. These were partner's choices, I was the 2 opener.
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No good agreements:
5 = Q with K, maybe other kings
5 = no Q
5NT = Q with no K
6 = Q with K, no K, maybe K
6 = Q with K, no other K
Never discussed anything else.

(edited after Steve Myerson's comment below; I had forgotten 5 was available.)
Feb. 23
Paul Holmes edited this comment Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@MR I didn't mean to imply that I couldn't see an alternative; just that I didn't know which alternative JH was suggesting. Nor did I mean to defend the choice (partner's choice, incidentally; I was the 2 opener); I simply didn't consider it germane to my question.
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, forgot to mention that partner could have bid 6 suit immediately to show an odd number of keycards and a void.
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure what other bid you're suggesting. Regardless, thanks for the pointless implied criticism. Also, there's no hyphen in “hijack”.

Any ideas on the answer to the question?
Feb. 23
1 2 3 4 5
.

Bottom Home Top