Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Peg Kaplan
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 285 286 287 288
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike - shouldn't reaching slam be possible if partner rebids 4 over 1? Lot of hand to pass.
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, opener could certainly have this hand for a 4 bid. And - I completely agree that there are some hands where splintering could work better than not.

On the other hand, if partner assumes that you have an “x” in spades, then he may place values elsewhere - and be disappointed.

Honestly, in my opinion, it is one of those hands with no clear & ideal choice. A splinter is flawed, 4 is flawed - as is my 4 choice. Pick your poison!
12 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I dislike the splinter with a stiff A or K. Partner will devalue AQ or KQ, etc. - and - those cards may well be valuable opposite a stiff A.
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ditto, Richard!
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Brad, your post jogged my memory for an extremely amusing article that appeared some years ago in The Bridge World. I assume most of us are familiar with “Master Solvers”. World class players every month submit their choice of bids on hands that are generally exceptionally perplexing. Very informative and thought provoking.

In any case, one issue, Zia submitted his answers … and then - submitted answers again! And no; all of his answers were not identical! Bridge World printed “Zia #1” and “Zia #2” answers for us!

Very amusing to see not only the discrepancy each “Zia”provided - but his comments, too!

Part of what makes this game as deep and complex as it is…. and fascinating!
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve - appreciate the apology. But - you just made an error!

Join a cast of Lord knows how many who have done this at the table - OR - Bridgewinners. (World class players included!)
20 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gene; completely agree that they have to figure out how to do better. And - as one can see from the threads on this topic - there are people frustrated and contemplating not playing the game they love because this issue is not being handled equitably.
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh, thanks for the clarification. Alas, I can screw up who bid what even when it is accurate .. sigh.
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gene, gave you a “like” although I do think that directors have to be careful with the penalties. If a pair arrives late twice at another table, yet it was THEIR OPPONENTS causing the lateness, then I do not think that this pair is one who should have to suffer.

Lots of issues to iron out - but - they gotta get figured out better than they are now! If we can't attain perfection (which rarely does occur) - then aim at lots better!
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, Jay - you bid 3NT over partner's 3 call.

(Glad to see that I'm not the only one who sometimes gets confused with who bid what in the diagrams!)
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, having done a fair amount of bridge writing over the years, it is next to impossible to write something of the length that Oren did without typos.

So - while it is nice of people to point them out so Oren can get them corrected, everyone should PLEASE note what a significant job this is …. and one that any bridge writer cannot produce without these sorts of typos.

THANK YOU, OREN! Great analysis, reporting and effort for all of us!
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yu, I disagree. Particularly at high level, my guess is that far more deals are “interesting” ones than not. With a random draw for deals, perhaps only 10-15% of those in a 26 board session would not be ones worth watching?

IF the deals were “pre-selected” from those available, players would know that the hands were not among the “not very interesting” ones. But - most ARE interesting. Ergo, I do not think that this should be a concern for anyone. And - “interesting” does not imply “fireworks” - only “not boring”.
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wow.
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many years ago, in the NAP, our opponents bid every suit under the sun, then landed in 5 of a minor. NO one bids 5 of a minor at matchpoints if they have a stopper in the unbid suit.. So, I cleverly underlead my club ace in the hopes of disguising where our values were.

Imagine my dismay when the stiff club was in dummy, staring at me - and winning! (Partner was great - as always; quite understanding….)
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jack, I understand - but - these pairs should be the least of our problems!
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you've got real good ones, tougher to double it, even if you can beat it up badly.
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Max - what more could/should one do here? Rebid a mediocre club suit? Repeat an already shown 5 card heart suit that is not remarkable?

We do have one more club than we might - but - I must admit I will be surprised if this isn't a rare 100%-er. (Maybe some “abstains” but beyond that……)
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I understand your points, Michael and Ai-Tai. Yet, although there aren't a lot of them, there are some hands where the opps simply cannot compete (improper vul, perhaps) - and at almost all tables, one pair bids to a straightforward game. Maybe making 4 or 5, depending upon opening lead, judgement, etc.

Let's face it - BORING.

You do not need a hand with “fireworks” for it to be interesting. I agree about “competing for partials”, various lines of plan on some hands and the like. I was only making the point that it would be sad for Oren (or any other fine commentator) to go through this exercise on a less than interesting hand. That's all.
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oren, I have an oddball question. Suppose the hands you were going to watch had one (or - geesh - TWO!) hands that were those rare birds which were not too interesting. Wouldn't that have been rather sad for you and all of us who are so enjoying the hands that you did see?

Sooo - my question is this. I assume that the directors were OK with you watching throughout and trusting you to remain mute about the hands. Why then, could they not have ensured that you had 2 hands of some interest by telling you “watch boards #x & #y?”

Your reply might then be “but in that case, people would know the boards were ”swing boards“ - but - not necessarily. A gulf between ”wild and crazy" boards and boards where the colors and cards themselves would lead to few swings throughout.

JUST curious, Oren!
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bill, thank you for the compliment. But - I don't see what ethics has to do with this issue.

If you've played with a partner for years, most of the time (not all; that's for sure!) you are on the same wavelength with partner because you've “been there; done that” previously. With a newer partner, a great deal that simply is not discussed … So - nothing more to do that go with what your “best guess” is as to how most players would play it.

I think that we can see from the votes that what is “standard/normal” varies a lot!

FWIW, on my team, both partnerships (one a more established partnership than the other) had a player who thought that 4th chair's bid was forcing - and another that did not.
Dec. 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 285 286 287 288
.

Bottom Home Top