Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Scott Needham
1 2 3 4 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ... 35 36 37 38
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I used to use what I thought was one decent indicator: percentage of total mps that are gold. Now, with the proliferation of Gold Rush events, that metric is dissolving.
Nov. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mr. Rhetorical.

Checked Weinstein's BW article: says that after 2-2N asking, “3m = Sing. (or void with min.)”, while 4m = “4-card om, ok for slam.”
Oct. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gary: I seem to recall that L-W won't open Flan with a void.

(As one who plays Flan, I haven't had many auctions in which reevaluation based upon shape, or reaching the right spot, was all that difficult. But the thread isn't about Flan, now, is it?)
Oct. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
FWIW, Levin-Weinstein play Flannery as 11-16 HCP, b/c, as I understand, they want reverses to be more or less GF.
Oct. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like the agreement that S's 5 shows a void and is exclusion.

Afterthought: Maybe LTTC is an overbid. Systemically, how strong could 4 be?
Oct. 31, 2015
Scott Needham edited this comment Oct. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The 4 bidders win this one. O's hand was V AKxx AJTxx KQJx. Makes even with QJTx in E.
Oct. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Treatises: Robson & Segal, Partnership Bidding at Bridge: The Competitive Auction, available at http://www.bridge.is/files/Partnership%20Bidding%20at%20Bridge_2054397795.pdf

and Roy Hughes, The Contested Auction. You may never read all of either one, but both are thorough and loaded with Stuff.
Oct. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that, with that responding hand, there is little danger of a missing control. There are many possible R hands that would create some doubt about the O holding.
Oct. 14, 2015
Scott Needham edited this comment Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm with Benoit on this: I'd hope partner would never hold xx on this auction
Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I find it plenty effective. And note that it was effective here….”

ATT, S violated system – bid 4 on a quite nice, 4-cd constructive raise. So I suppose you could say it was effective….
Oct. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yours is probably a better stopper.
Oct. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As little as xxx QTxx xxx xxx probably makes 3N, but I'd open 1 b/c I have better methods and more space in the reverse auction.
Oct. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AK(J)xxx and out?
Sept. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Point taken – I just hope that folks will vote “other,” tell me the choices are too restrictive and why that is so. Naked votes are uninformative, really, unless there are 6 choices that really parse the issue.
Sept. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, on this layout it would have been effective if the pair understood it to be wide-ranging and W passed. But E thought the call was wide-ranging, and W thought it was more specifically descriptive. IMHO, if E thought it should be descriptive, s/he is crazy to bid 3; if W thought it was wide-ranging, s/he is crazy to bid 5.
Sept. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 (or 3) = 6, not Hx (or 4 )? Seems to me to be an unusual agreement, maybe you could generalize a bit on the use of similar calls.

4 is in a Frivolous context?

In context of these agreements, I suggested 1-2/2-3/3-5, but then S has to take a view that 5 is safe. 4 would be regressive, and S has already used up the cue (no Serious/Frivolous).

I agree with your 2/1 theory viewpoint, and perhaps 2N by S is right; I'm liking it more and more. But without that 3 agreement, I dunno. Probably 1-2/2-2N/3-4 etc would be best, and it would be within this system agreement. At the other table, a GLM just went keycard with xx in .

(3 doesn't seem to be a “problem” per se, the problem would be 1-2/2-3/4. :-) )
Sept. 30, 2015
Scott Needham edited this comment Sept. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with your ‘last guess’ argument, but IMHO bidding to the 3-level in a lower ranking suit doesn't give much of a problem to anyone. That's one reason I asked the question: Should a normally ineffective call be agreed to be descriptive rather than disruptive? 4 would be an entirely different kettle of fish.
Sept. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Always trying to establish boundary conditions. “Usually” or equivalents may be a more realistic characterization of nearly everything in life, but it doesn't help bracket cases in the way that responses to the ‘extreme statements’ do.
Sept. 30, 2015
Scott Needham edited this comment Sept. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A true pessimist: KJTxxx without K and K, They take the push and we go plus. ;-)
Sept. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I personally think that people who cannot win without such inferences prefer having them, and people who are able to use logic and skill to win prefer to have them gone.”

Assuming these are separate sets of people, no overlap? No winners among the good inferrers? Doesn't leave much room for the maximally logical and skillful successful inferrer, now, does it?
Sept. 20, 2015
1 2 3 4 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ... 35 36 37 38
.

Bottom Home Top