Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Will Roper
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I didn't say it was a bad thing? Like me you often tend to focus too much on the bad rather than the good.
May 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve never puts up hands he is happy with….period
May 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If Niall was N then I very much doubt this is a Pass vs Bid problem. More likely to be “is 3N a viable option”.
May 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Both of the opponents bids in that sequence can mean different things at different times Paul :)
May 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was discussing this last night as it came up in the USBF.

Yes I do think it is better either to play this or some form of transfer advance. You shouldn't play stuff after a 1N overcall though. I.e

(1)-1-(1)-? You should play whatever you play over 1-(1)
(1)-1-(1N)-? There is a big difference between this auction and 1-(1N). In one sequence you probably play double = T/O and the other = penalties.

The interesting sequence is:
(1)-1-(X)-2 = Does this show diamonds? Even if 1 promises 4 or 5
May 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
;-)
April 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lol. I was guessing on the reverse Richard. i.e 6 to beat 3 and 5 to beat 4.
April 30, 2017
Will Roper edited this comment April 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I clicked on this assuming I was going to get a Fisher-Schwartz clip….
April 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not to mention nasty crunch matches between 3-6 and 4-5
April 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If we are supporting BW contributors who do we vote for out of 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14 or 15 (sorry if I missed anyone).
April 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My head tells me one of 3, 6 or 8. Although only a fool actively bets against 1 or 2.
April 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Done this and it wasn't pretty. SPL opposite SPL!
April 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks. I am guessing by the general lack of comments that either:

a) I have finally made an article with no gaps/mistakes in it or
b) I have finally made an article which has put everyone to sleep
April 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I clearly do not have any idea of global trends. All the circles I run in seem to play this as a FJ and would argue it as automatic. Having never bothered to properly learn or play FJ, I thought I was simply out of touch with the correct approach.
April 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought this vote would be 99-1 against me. Still expect it to shift heavily towards FJ as time progresses.
April 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Drat I forgot the trials were coming up. Event I love to watch right at the time I am meant to be revising!
April 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Any hand which works for line 2 would have:

a) not led a trump (especially one as pivotal as the T)
b) bid 2 rather than doubling
April 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Keeping strictly to the hand isn't double T/O by West? If it is then I am very confused as to the problem.
April 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Again I agree with MR's style and think it is worth adding that if you preference 3 with better diamonds this is also a case for bidding 2N with certain hands that do have slight preference for a minor. E.g 3-3-3-4.
April 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with MR that rulings seem to have gone down a dark path. Instead of restoring equity we are now left with people using them to gain left, right and centre.

I do think that partner should not be allowed to ask that question. If they are allowed then they should always be asking in theory, a practice that virtually no-one adheres to.

Is this truly a worrying loophole in the rules? It is a somewhat abstract and cynical view. It brings to mind the Mollo hand where the Rabbit revokes and loses two tricks but gains 3. Modern rules obviously solve that issue as it was thought that an unethical player could do this feasibly. However, here we have a defensive player in a position where they have to guess whether their partners major penalty card is more costly then the revoke penalty. When you add in time constraints/morals, I think this situation is highly unfeasible and not worth worrying too much over.

But hey, to each their own.
April 25, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top