Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Scott Needham
1 2 3 4 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ... 35 36 37 38
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One can toss it off to ego-valuative reasons like “they think they're smarter than everyone else,” but I am somewhat in awe of the ego strength required to continue to cheat in major events – especially since video became common – knowing that their opponents are entirely capable of figuring it out and that some of them know they are cheating, and are talking about it, even if it hasn't been figured out. Maybe its just a thrill rush, similar to that described by high-level thieves, but neither of those guys ever looks too thrilled about much of anything.
Sept. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One can play “relay-refusal” transfers within Kokish with the 6+ suit weak hands: 2C-2D/2H-2N,3C,3D,3H = transfer to the weak suit. Just define “weak.”
Sept. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
E, where is his contribution posted? I haven't located it.
Sept. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I've gotten the general allegation outline correct, we have coughing for hand strength, tray/board placement and tray timing for suits, and some loosely correlated positioning of objects or handedness movements for card location.

It has occurred to me that, if I were signalling for suits/leads – leads being the most remarkably obvious part of a deal to analyze, the thing that really gets folks talking – I'd have a simple rule for randomizing the code. Something like noon, 3 o'clock, six and 9: Establish a baseline code action that says , another etc – this is the “noon” structure; next session (or last 8 of this segment, many variations possible) we play 3 o'clock, rotating to correlate to the normal 3 o'clock action.

Not that hard to do, and very effective….
Sept. 2, 2015
Scott Needham edited this comment Sept. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or 16+, splinter.
Aug. 31, 2015
Scott Needham edited this comment Aug. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1m-2N invitational.
Aug. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wasn't aware that KnR could apply to responding hands, measure fit in a vacuum, etc.
Aug. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As 1N?
Aug. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
paraphrase: If a well-fitting minimum hand opposite provides game or slam, make the try.
Aug. 24, 2015
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
1 2 3 4 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ... 35 36 37 38
.

Bottom Home Top