Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ronald Kalf
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 80 81 82 83
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Absolutely, I guess Mr. Swanson is just trying to jump on the bandwagon that Mr. Wilsmore started rolling. Mr. Wilsmore is wiilling to use even far-fetched arguments to „prove“ his theories without realizing that he is dicrediting his own work by supporting this humbug.
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
…I cannot imagine more then the 3 options given. Given that the hand generator does not do what I expected it to do a bidding poll would have saved you and me a lot of trouble.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry I thought the hand generator shows all that, but unfortunately didn‘t check. Edited to 2nd seat Nobody Vul.
Sept. 19
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dominic, I agree, but I don‘t know how to phrase it better. I hope my meaning is clear: not a bidding or lead problem, not an article or poll on bidding, lead or signalling agreements etc.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Felix, I‘m sorry. I thought that Mr. Wilsmore mentioned D.I. Explicitly in his promotion article. There is only an indirect reverence „Old-time Blue Club players who could never understand how to reconcile cueing first-and-second-round controls equally, with no Blackwood past the second round of bidding (unless a jump), can now see how it was done.“ The Italians either played 4N as D.I. or as Tutbo. D.I. Declares that the partnership controls all suits and Interrogates about extras. Bidding 4N as well as when to make a positive response to 4N also depends upon the number of key cards that can be expected from the bidding sofar. I have played D.I. Without cheating from 2013-2017 and have never been in a slam of 2 key cards. I‘ve also played D.I. In the 70s and can‘t remember exactly, but I am sure that the method was succesfull. Turbo is another substitute for RKCB where 4N shows an even number of key cards and a bid above 4N an odd number.
D.I. and Italian cue bids were/are also part of Kaplan Scheinwold Updated (KSU).
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Edgar Kaplan, edited, sorry.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The example makes a case for NFB.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
„most of the top US players go above and beyond in their ethical efforts.“ And others do not?
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The promotion of Mr. Wilsmores book generates more comments then any bridge related article. It seems there is still a lot of frustration about the Italian dominance of 30-40 years ago. We know from recent cases how hard it is to prove cheating. Trying to make a case from matches that long ago is impossible. Some of the examples given may look strange, but then they were extraordinary players. Other examples are nonsense. Mr. Wilsmore probably hasn‘t used D.I., I have … without cheating as I have played Roman Club without cheating. BTW D.I. Was part of KSU. Is Mr. Wilsmore suggesting that the great (no sarcasm, I really think he‘s the greatest bridge theoretican of all times) Edgar Kaplan cheated?
Sept. 19
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why depressing? Nothing has been proven and Mr. Wilsmores book will not prove anything either. The Australian Bridge Federation denied him the opportunity to promote his book, BW gave him this opportunity. Depressing?
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sour grapes, milady?
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even without frequent psyches X of 3 is penalty.
Avon, is this „Crusade against the Blue Team (part 2)“?
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have doubled 3 for penalty.
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Transfers and a transfer in their suit is Stayman.
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you don‘t envision game you pass 2. If you do - and that seems sensible to me - just ask yourself this question: what is the most likely game? The answer: the best minor suit game is 3N! What are your options? 1) 2N or 3 invitational. Looking at my hand I should play 3N, ergo bid 2N. 2) My choice 3N! Do I know if it makes? No, but neither can I be sure about 2N or 3.
As an aside, the problem with all the books you can buy, is that they are incomplete. You have to work on the details by yourself. Some complete systems are available for free on https://bridgewithdan.com/systems/ unfortunately none of them Polish Club based. IMO Ambra, Kokish-Kraft Notes and Revision Club are detailed enough to use without further work. As it is I prefer PC or rather my adaption even if it is „work in progress“. We are pretty satisfied, but room for improvement keeps coming up.
Your example shows that no matter how detailed your system is, there will be situations where you simply have to decide where you want to go. Then you just say to yourself „to hell with science, today I‘m going to be pragmatic“.
Sept. 16
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How is 4N help me find out if pard has 1, 2 or 3 aces? What will you do if pard bids 5, Pass or 6? If pard bids 5 you will bid 5 and pard is forced to bid 6 with 2263 but will pass with 3262. As Bas pointed out in the companion bidding problem, 4N then 5 over either 5 or 5 could be interpreted as a slam try in with control. I will make that an entry in the chapter „Various competitive situations“
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, 4N followed by 5 was my second choice. Bidding 4 or 5 never occurred to me.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One lie is as good as the other. This is why I don‘t play 4SF (or 3SF for that matter) in the traditional way. I can bid 2 as a neutral bid and pard will tell me why he bid 4SF. This could be 1) 4crd , no -stop, 2) 5crd with or without -stop, 3) slam try in , or , 4) 5-4 (I could be 1444). But even if you do play traditional 4SF, you should define follow-ups and if you do you will find out that you have lots of different follow-ups depending upon the first 4 bids.
Sept. 15
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Considering the crap people bid with these days, I don‘t think it‘s a good idea.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, he’s a good player, but at times stuck on what he learned as a beginner. We get along very well, but sometimes I need the help of BW to sort out our differences (sometimes he‘s right and I‘m wrong!). In the parallel poll on high level negativ e doubles 13 out of 100 voters agree with his interpretation of a negative double on 4, even if that doesn‘t mean that they would have doubled with my hand.
Sept. 15
Ronald Kalf edited this comment Sept. 15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 80 81 82 83
.

Bottom Home Top