Join Bridge Winners

Bridge Winners Profile for David Parsons

David Parsons
David Parsons
  • 3
    Following
  • 7
    Followers
  • 505
    Posts
  • 0
    Favorites

Basic Information

Member Since
Nov. 6, 2015
Last Seen
an hour ago
Member Type
Bridge Player
about me

Actuary, Ranked Chess and Othello Master, now retired and studying Bridge.

Bridge Information

Regular Bridge Partners
Paul Frean, Irving Gewirtzman, David Carter, Dan Rothstein
Member of Bridge Club(s)
Honors in NYC
Favorite Conventions
Not a convention, but I love New Losing Trick Count (NLTC) for hand evaluation.
BBO Username
parsonsdav
ACBL Ranking
Ruby Life Master
Parsons Libchaber
Two over One (Larry Cohen's Style)
Copy to my cards View/Print
Evaluate this hand
The eight loser rule is using the old losing trick count method. The New Losing Trick Count (NLTC) evaluates this hand as 8.5 losing tricks, which is consistent with a limit raise. I ran a double dummy simulation giving both opener and overcaller five cards in their suits with ...
Evaluate this hand
Mike Lawrence, in his wonderful book Judgment at Bridge 2, uses the term Simple Raise in talking about Drury. Opening in third seat, he describes the following auctions (opponents silent): 1M-2-2: Opener will accept a "Limit Raise" 1M-2-2-2M: Responder has a "Constructive Raise" 1M-2M: Responder has ...
Evaluate this hand
The terminology I use is standard in bridge literature, but I am aware that not everyone might use the same terminology. My understanding is: (1) Limit Raise = Four-level in a suit contract is likely if partner has a King more than his minimum opener. Can be three or four cards ...
New Losing Trick Count (NLTC) Explained
Yes, this is the same NLTC -- there are some adjustments necessary such as Michael Kopera's comment above about filling out the trump suit to make it three cards, and counting KQ tight as being 1.0 losing tricks, not 1.5. NLTC is a real favorite of mine, and ...
Standard Definition of a Limit Raise Response to a Major Suit opening
Some say that a limit raise must have defensive HCP values, and can't be bid merely on shape and losing tricks. The "(1)" is meant to convey the rules of those who think that. I once explained a Bergen 3 raise of my partner's major suit opener ...
David Parsons's bidding problem: AKT 532 983 A654
Thanks, Jack. Your comments are always enlightening. The more I think about it, the less I like opening this hand.
Pressure Bid Weak Twos -- Alertable?
I was actually mistaken about our card indicating six cards -- the convention card doesn't have a place to describe the length of weak two bids, only the HCPs of them. So, our card does not disclose length at all. Sorry for that mis-statement in the OP.
Pressure Bid Weak Twos -- Alertable?
Yes
David Parsons's bidding problem: J9 --- AKQJ854 AKQ9
That's what my partner did -- and no one else. Missing the AK, we go down one where the best opponents could do is 2. But I'm glad my partner had at least one vote of agreement!
David Parsons's bidding problem: AKT 532 983 A654
No, it was a bad contract -- The undisclosed bidder had QJx of spades and diamonds was unstopped. But I'm not saying it shouldn't have been bid just because it went down.
.

Bottom Home Top