Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Franklin
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 23 24 25 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because it's very hard for me to imagine any other social activity I could engage in that would make it possible for me to have gourmet dinners with people such as yourself, Roy and Zia! :)
Feb. 4
Richard Franklin edited this comment Feb. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just FYI, the position has been filled. Thanks to all for your consideration! :)
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
<<Latter line seeems better mathematically (♠Qx), but something - I don't know what - is drawing me to the former.>>

Well, a certain number of quality defenders would lead away from the club king, with a 75% chance that the club ace is on their left and knowing how much declarers hate to go down on the opening trick.

No one is ever leading away from the spade queen. So if I decide a finesse is the better way to go than a squeeze, although it's probably not a huge difference, I know I'm slightly happier paying off to the spade queen offside than than to the club king.
Jan. 4
Richard Franklin edited this comment Jan. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You and I both love bridge, Max. We shouldn't hurt the organization that does a lot of things right and provides us the opportunity to play this game against like minded people.

Hurting the ACBL, which already has one foot in the grave and the other precariously close to stepping on a banana peel is not the way to go. There are much better ways to protest.

Although readmitting an admitted collusive cheater is no doubt a gut punch, let's not burn down the house to get rid of a termite, or cut off our nose to spite our face. (I couldn't decide which analogy to use here, so I used them both. The individual reader should enjoy the one they like best, and ignore the other.) :)
Dec. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just for the record, I'm not sure the opening leader was identified correctly. When I clicked on the opening leader, it appeared to be Hans Ove Andersen, not Sartaj Hans.
Dec. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
MR: Alright - time for a stupid question. I've seen it said many times that a slow pass must show an ace. Why? Why can't it be QJ10 of spades?

If a world class pair can bid to 7NT off 5 top tricks, why can't they just as well bid to 7NT with one loser in their main suit?

Maybe the BIT is South trying to count whether E/W can come to 13 tricks with only 2 spade tricks? Why must it specifically be the ace of diamonds? Maybe we can figure out it must be the ace of diamonds after 3 days of analysis, but can we really be as 100% sure of that as you seem to be in the maybe one minute opening leader has to consider the problem?

I understand it's more likely to be an ace, and therefore, absent “the comment”, a diamond lead is verboten. But I don't understand why it HAS to be an ace rather than some other possible trick which is making South consider a double……
Dec. 19, 2018
Richard Franklin edited this comment Dec. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the crux of the matter, and again it's too bad we don't have a video, is how long was the tray on the South/West side. If South took 15-20 seconds to think, West can pass it right through without thinking at all (he has no legal call other than pass) and I don't think that is a BIT. IMHO, it's more the fault of players who get a tray with 7NT in it and routinely slam down Pass/Pass and send the tray back in 3 seconds, that makes 15 seconds look like a huge break in tempo.

I'm really hoping that the tray was on the S/W side for more like 30-45 seconds for this director call and appeal. Sadly, without a video, we'll never know for sure whose sense of time was correct in this case.
Dec. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Jan,

Because bridge is a game of full disclosure. If North had asked any questions at all about what this auction means (and we don't know for certain if he did), he is entitled to that information.

It doesn't matter what jogged East's memory, a BIT, or something else. North is entitled to the information about what their bidding sequence means, regardless.
Dec. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think Bobby would have been thinking about a bid so much as assault and battery.
Dec. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael R: I think we all know your general beliefs on BIT's, etc., and FWIW, I very much agree with you.

But don't leave us hanging….how would you have ruled in THIS case? With the director, or with the panel?
Dec. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Andy Bowles: Fair enough. Still makes the diamond lead a huge favorite though, IMO.
Dec. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael,

No question about it, you are absolutely right in the generic case. But I don't believe you would be right to apply it to this specific case. If that was your intent….I don't know.

We can't leave aside the issue of East's comment. In this specific case, North, a world class player, has been told by East that I thought West had the DA, but I just realized he almost certainly doesn't (and East has already denied it the DA by not redoubling).

Given the tiny, tiny chance North was asleep - not a condition I've ever seen him in when I've played against him, that comment from East is sure as heck gonna wake him up. He has the AI from East. It makes the UI from South completely irrelevant. IMHO.
Dec. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Although not having been there I can't be 100% sure of the facts, from what has been shared with us….it seems to me that South's tempo break woke up Grue to the most likely meaning of the way Levin had bid the hand. He then properly shared that information with Glubok - that Levin should very likely have a diamond void for the way he had bid.

Grue has already denied the DA by not redoubling. Given just those facts, I don't see how there is a LA to a diamond lead.
Dec. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know if Joe G. would remember this - depends on how often he bids slams off cashing aces :) - but a while back he RKCB'd against my pard and I in a pair event. His suit was clubs and he got the dreaded 5D response.

For just a nanosecond I saw the word f**k flash across Joe's face, and I knew my 2 side suit aces were cashing, so I doubled in tempo. My partner, bless him, managed to lead the 3rd side suit.

It would be a better story if I could say Joe managed to take 12 tricks in the 2 suits that he wasn't missing an ace, but sadly he had to eventually come off dummy in one of my suits. I could have ducked to try and beat it two, but not wanting to be the protagonist in a story like Steve's above, like Brave Sir Robin I boldly cashed my 2 aces.
Dec. 5, 2018
Richard Franklin edited this comment Dec. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't remember who said it, but it was something to the effect that if you are not a good enough player to lead an ace against 7NT, then not doubling shows you are an excellent bidder for your skill level!
Dec. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I might add that I just took on a mentee, and if I play with her for a decade, after 10 years I would still not deem it yet to be the time to discuss pretty much anything at all about this situation, with the small possible exception of please do not bid 7NT off 5 cashing tricks. :)
Dec. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not only have my 2 partners (of more than 30 years each) never discussed this situation - what does my double or non-double of 7NT mean after pard has previously made a lead directing double - I don't remember this EVER coming up at the table.

Isn't it possible that you could go a bridge lifetime without it ever coming up? For it to happen, partner has to make a lead directing double, but then end up on lead - with the opps bidding to 7NT off an ace! And this all has to occur with one partner having enough to make a lead directing double, and on top of THAT, his/her partner has an ace…..

I mean, who the heck has discussed this? Forget about any chance of the N/S in this case having discussed this, I'm pretty confident even with their 400+ pages of notes, if you asked Meckwell what double or non-double meant here, they would say: “undiscussed”.
Dec. 4, 2018
Richard Franklin edited this comment Dec. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Aah…I see the problem, Paul. You're trying to make sense of this whole situation. Stop trying that and you'll be a lot happier. :)
Dec. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sigh. A plague on both their houses.

Ruling should have assigned E/W the table result of down 2, and N/S should have received the minus score for 7NT making.

I don't think North did anything wrong by leading a diamond, but still the only result I can live with here is for both sides to get the zero that they really and truly earned. :)
Dec. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've watched my partners (more than once!), for example, lead the 8 at trick 12 from a holding of 10 8 to declarer's stiff 9 for a loss of 2 tricks.
Nov. 13, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 23 24 25 26
.

Bottom Home Top