Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Scott Needham
1 2 3 4 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ... 33 34 35 36
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I learned K-S in college from an ex-Marine who loaned me two of Edgar's books, and suffered the critical slings and arrows of the 24-hour game in my student house lounge. I played intermittent club duplicate, maybe 6-7 times a year, at the old Wild Whist in Westwood, Los Angeles. But when I moved to Steamboat Springs, Colorado, I found nary a card player for 150 miles, which began a 30-year play sabbatical involving family and work but also including bridge study as a mode of relaxation. Never stopped my TBW subscription; read a lot of books.

So now I'm learning again, having taken up 3-per-week club games and tournament play during the last 8 years – real world study. I suspect that “30 years off” is a common pattern.
July 27, 2015
Scott Needham edited this comment July 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed….Thx.
July 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sounds like some version of K-S DI, which, I believe, was borrowed from the Italians when Kaplan undertook to improve US slam bidding to try to stop the Blue Team from +13ing everyone to death.
July 4, 2015
Scott Needham edited this comment July 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like Italian; most favored partner doesn't. Compromise: 3-level cues = 1st round control, but 4-level cues can be 2nd-round control.
July 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3-level new suit followed by 4-level previously bid or bid/raised suit, 95% in the minors. Major suit auctions seem to take care of themselves, at least in 2/1 or minor/major in K-S, but the example-type given by Kopera would ring a bell if it went 1-2 in K-S or any 2/1 playing Std. Am.. And then hope partner wasn't bidding Lessard's hand.
June 28, 2015
Scott Needham edited this comment June 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I understand. Part (most) of the soft edges in this discussion (as in other general, not hand-specific, bidding polls) are caused by a failure to specify context by rigorously drafting the poll. For instance, even my statement “I think lead-directing calls are extremely valuable” is contextual – with my inner bridge player. IOW, in context of the agreements I have with my primary partners regarding LDXs, they are; a more accurate general statement would be “…can be…” depending upon context. So mea culpa for that. However

****alert! mild rant warning!!***

As is true with many, perhaps most, GENERAL bidding issues brought forward on the site, the preconditions here are (or, I think, should be) assumed. It's not like any of these problems are presented in a vacuum or that any of them can be defined in the way a mathematician can approach a proof, by defining several terms and then making a critical assumption: ‘blah blah blah now assume that any string space S is linearly isomorphic to a separable Hilbert space H of functions in the domain of real numbers. What follows?’

Obviously, Frank's and Heitzman's “depends on” and “may not”/“may already”/“may be” observations are 100% valid, but they merely state what I believe should be the assumed preconditions (“Standard Fundamental Assumption?”) for any similar problem. In the game of bridge, judgment is ALWAYS rearing its head, and ALWAYS depends on context; for any given problem there are a hell of a lot of possible contexts. I suspect that, like you, most abstainers abstain for this or similar reasons.

So if I were to put the issue more rigorously, it would have a definitional preamble and then would ask something like “If you and your partner have decided that LDXs are valuable just to indicate a safe lead, what suit etc”, then “If you and your partner have decided that LDXs are valuable primarily to indicate a lead that is likely to result in a set, what suit etc” So I get it.

****end of mild rant****

But an interesting issue has been raised by Heitzman's statement and your concurrence: If "A double of 2♣ says I think we can profitably compete in ♣s. As such it should normally be a 6-bagger" would you not double on Axx Axx xx QJTxx or similar?
June 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What, I shouldn't think they are “extremely valuable”?
June 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
yes – left that out, so edited to assume matchpoints.
June 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In college, I was blessed with access to KPPC, FM 106.7, Pasadena, the world's first (and best ever) underground FM radio station. Mythical. Firesign Theatre and Credibility Gap did live newscasts and special “moments” of varying lengths that were taped and interspersed amongst the music; the Persuasions did all the bumps, station IDs etc. DJs were special, including Miss Outrageous Nevada and
The Obscene Steven Clean, with B. Mitchell Reed coming in for a short stint before he went on to own LA FM radio. Could always hear the on-air folks inhaling something or other. Only lasted from maybe fall 1969 to sometime in early 1971, but the day it went off air was a very sad day.
June 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not to hijack the thread, but that one came at me like the wet kiss at the end of a long fist. er, hot kiss, wet fist? or long kiss, hot fist? It's been a lo-o-o-o-ng time.
June 23, 2015
Scott Needham edited this comment June 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Besides mp totals, the primary real-world distinguishing data point would seem to be “have you won something and, if so, what”?

Perhaps tack a “win/scratch at one or more regional/sectional/national events” requirement to every successive mp level (similar to GLM/PLM distinction), and require a new/different win or scratch for each mp level, which would presumably bring some assurance that the new win/scratch took place at a higher level or in a higher bracket. A person could hold 2501 mps and still be a Bronze LM – but then how do you distinguish a 2501 BLM from a 2501 GLM when, say, setting up KO brackets or Swiss flights? Use an extra data point in the data bases?

EDIT: Saw Herbert's post, like it.
June 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
High Level McCabe?
June 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm thinking N better be 2=3=4=4, max. (I suppose 1=4=4=4 is a possible variation, or 1=3=(5-4) with a weakish 5-cd minor.) But then jdonn seems to think it's penalty under the bidder, so I may be full of gas…..
June 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Q?
June 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This comment appeared on the Bidding Problem page:

Sean Zhang: “I don't see X violates any agreement here and will be my preference in nearly all 6H-4S hand with opening value. I can compete as high as 4H from preempted positions: 1C-1D-1H-4D-P-P-(?) verse 1C-1D-X-4D-P-P-4H.”

Sort of what opener said when the auction on this hand went 1-(1)-1-(P)//2-(3)-3S, ending up in 5, making 6. Opener claimed Responder denied 4 spades by his failure to negX, so 3S is NT probe; Responder claimed he was counting on Opener to bid 1 with four as he would've in an unopposed auction, and that he didn't bid NT after O's 2 cue, so 3 has to be four.

I wonder whether there is a point here with good 4-6 hands that indicates a good system agreement (but then query re: equally good 4-5)? even though I've found no discussion, and Lawrence advises 1 with a very similar hand….
June 8, 2015
Scott Needham edited this comment June 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
XYZ can preserve the SJS hand description (I think having that available is critical), and RFR offers many pluses – which I'm sure others will lay out.
June 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do you (more precisely) mean “semi-artificially” or do you jump to 3 with the 5+=4+ opening values hands?
June 7, 2015
Scott Needham edited this comment June 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This pair, also. Didn't want to complicate the inquiry by excluding RFR hands.
June 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Forcing 1, 11+, even in Truscott's “The Bidding Dictionary.”
June 4, 2015
1 2 3 4 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ... 33 34 35 36
.

Bottom Home Top