Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Robert Stevens
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 20 21 22 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Josh and Philip make good points. The signaller's philosophy is “telling partner what he wants to know”. Problem is divining what it is that partner wishes to know. As Josh says: “Defense is hard”.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with Richard, although if partner has only four s I don't think we will beat it anyway. Another possible hand for declarer is AK10x KQxx xxx Ax, so a return is also a possible play. Waiting to take your A until the third round is a clever idea.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Richard. Your post continues the Shakespearean vein of our original poster. Methinks you have a point; or two.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Man, you have some pretty rose colored spectacles there. 4 making when p had the magic 5314, can't beat 4, and ok against the 4-1 break.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So, Sathya your point is..what? That you should pass and let p make the last mistake, or is it that you just pass hoping it will be passed out, or that you hope p will take the 500 point save just in case S has 1561 and your p had the hand you surmised?
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Speaking as someone that knows quite certainly that I don't wish to bid to the level of 5 I certainly would not invite my p to do so with a forcing pass.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't really disagree with Richard and Bob, but any evaulation should include not just the amount of gain/loss, but the frequency thereof.

My judgement is that both 4 and 4 are more likely than not to fail by a trick. And 4 may fail spectacularly when East catches a dummy like : Kxx x AQJx Kxxxx.

I agree with Richard's comment about double, but even if you play responsive ( or “cards” in that unlovely word), I don't believe E has the hand for it – it isn't meant to be a substitute for “I wanted to bid 4 was was too chicken to do so on a weak four carder”. Is it?

Another question worth asking is what difference it would make if E held x instead of K. See my later post.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would like to pose a follow up question. Which of these two hands: x or K (same other cards) is the better one on which to bid 4. Frankly, I think there are arguments either way, but I'll reserve my thoughts until someone chooses to comment.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm with Lynn, and go -620. I don't think any of the actions was terrible, but I just don't get this way people have of doubling because they don't want to take a risk bidding a suit that they hold. I want to be able to double here to extract a penalty, and not to say that I was too wimpy to bid 4. I definitely disagree with leading a low . After partner wins, and we get the ruff, and that ruff is not at the cost of a trick, we still need him to hold a mighty lot of defense to beat it.
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
? Offensive hand? Balanced; no five card suit; no certain 8 card fit? What are you meant to be holding in anyway? How much more defensive can it be to double 3 for takeout?
Oct. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do we? I remember when “having congress” could be interpreted as being rather more exciting that just playing cards. :)
Oct. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I doubt that revoking is a good answer.
Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Time for restricted choice. Monty could still have a 2/3 chance for salvation.
Oct. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or “Eat your cake and have it too”. Ted Kaczynski.
Oct. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I found myself saddened reflecting on this, and reading personal recollections, including that of Henry Sun to single out just one. What now replaces the bonding of parents and children in sharing a fascinating and stimulating game which excites intellect and imagination? How to play the latest war and mayhem computer game?
Sept. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What are these “many hands” that you wish to express which you were unable to express one level lower, which lead to a decent contract, and whose expression is now imperative even though p still has a bid coming?
Sept. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael says silly argument. So silly in fact that everyone, experts included, played that way for decades.
Sept. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let's see. I can give up my penalty double which is unambiguous, and likely quite profitable; or I can insist that we play the hand in an inadequate fit with quite possibly fewer than half the high cards. I can't really have, I mean *really have*, the other two suits since I would have bid the first time. So I have some imperfect collection where I simply couldn't stand to let the opps play in their marginal fit instead of playing one my own.

What a close choice.
Sept. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And I with the seekers for blood since I would never hold the hand described.
Sept. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It would seem that a responsive double caters to all those hands in which you wish to play a seven card fit with no particular reason to think you have half the high cards.
Sept. 28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 20 21 22 23
.

Bottom Home Top