Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Steve Chen
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If it can be assured that declarer has void, then A lead is indicated. However, there might be elements of bluffing here. Although it can be deduced that dummy wouldn't be void in clubs (from the 3 bid, which probably has to be honest), the same cannot be said for diamond control bids from the declarer. Declarer has wild distribution, so he is in position to possibly psych these control bids. Give declarer singleton diamond and void in clubs instead, A lead would be disastrous.

From the opening leader's perspective, either minor suit aces might cause disaster. But if partner has something in spades, maybe a safe lead is what is called for. Even if partner doesn't have a spade stopper, declarer might be 4-8 in majors, in such a case there is no need to guess on minor suit aces on the opening lead. In short I think a passive trump (or spade) lead is quite reasonable.

I don't quite understand East's double of 4. To me, it doesn't seem to have purpose. It also gives opponents some extra room (e.g. to re-double to show spade control). It does muddle the water a little, but not necessarily gaining for the defending side.
July 16, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a great series to watch, with many insights.

On board 8, although it is not clear to play a club or diamond at trick 3, playing a trump cannot be right. Club switch would be right if declarer has KQTxx, xx, Qx, KQxx, while diamond is necessary if the hand is AKQxx, xx, xx, Kxxx. I think on average, a diamond back is right more often (it also caters for hands like AQTxxx, xx, xx, KQx). For this hand, either club or diamond would work out. Trump back is just too passive, given dummy's threatening club suit.
Feb. 2, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Making top a 12 on that board may not work out if they simply compare the final total MP, since there are pairs who didn't play those two boards. But I am sure they could do something to normalize the results, one way or another.
Feb. 1, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Polly, thanks for the information. Could you elaborate what you meant by “average across the section”? For example a top board in a single section would be 12, does “average” mean scaling it to 25 (the 2-section-top)?

BTW I would like to see penalty applied to the pairs that made the foul boards. It would at least encourage people to double-check and reduce these incidents. But I would like to know if this is supported by duplicate law.
Feb. 1, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that for the second case, boards 27/28 should be thrown away (no one else has played it in your section, so the result becomes irrelevant regardless of your performance on those two), but if possible director should arrange a late play between you and second pair, on boards 23 and 24. If late play is not possible, then A+ sounds right.

I have an interesting question on my own. In a sectional game last weekend, in our section two boards appeared to be in wrong order compared with hand record: board 29 and 30 were switched, probably because the people that made those boards were careless. The MP were scored cross-section (altogether two sections), with top being 25. I didn't get to find out how they adjusted the score (I found out this problem after driving back home), but I am wondering what should they do in this case? Also, should the original 2 pairs who made the boards be penalized?
Jan. 31, 2012
.

Bottom Home Top