Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Damian Hassan
1 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wonder if this is David testing his self-commentary idea.
At the table I would consider the K lead, but only in a ‘I suppose that might be right’ way. Like Richard, I think my teammates would be less than sympathetic if the K blows the contract. I will lead J (not completely safe - I will have made things a lot easier for declarer if pard has Ax. If our opponents find the K at the other table and it works…
“Paranoia strikes deep, Into your life it will creep, It starts when you're always afraid, You step out of line, the man come and take you away…”
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Declarer could have something like

AJT2
AK3
AJ84
92

when we need to switch to a club, or

T32
AK3
AJ84
A92

when we need to continue spades to set up our fifth trick before declarer leads towards dummy's Q.

There's nothing about the carding or declarer's line to help us choose.
June 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The layouts that matter are A2 - JT95, AJ52 - T9, and A952 - JT. East had a choice of 3 cards on layout 1, and both E and W had 2 cards to choose from on layouts 2 and 3, so in isolation I think the odds are 3:2 in favour of playing the Q next. However, about 69% of the time West would have had 4 or more clubs with his 4 spades when he would have been able to defeat the contract by forcing dummy, so the odds switch to about 2:1 in favour of playing for the A2.

I agree with Richard that opponents do not always find the best defence, but forcing dummy when holding the long trumps looks right, and West only needs to find this half the time to make playing for Ax the better option.
May 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was composing my comment when Steve Bloom posted his. The odds in isolation would favour playing for JT or T9 with East, but in that case West could easily have defeated the contract if they started with at least four clubs.
May 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think double has to show an 18+ hand balanced/semi-balanced without a heart stop. It doesn't promise any particular spade length.
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The actual hand was:

AT72
-
AKQJT82
K6
53 J964
97532 KJ864
643 95
T43 AQ
KQ8
AQT
7
J98752

Any lead except a heart works.
Dec. 18, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard Fleet said, “The fact that a convention requires partner to take a particular course of action does not absolve him from responsibility for using his brains (if any)…”

I'd have thought that was the point of an idiot-proof convention.

A few years ago, Phil King ran a workshop for intermediate players at my local club on the theme of ‘picturing the hands’. One problem had partner opening an old-fashioned Acol 5 bid (showing a hand missing just the A and K of spades), and you held AK AK QJTxxxxxx. Everyone passed.
Nov. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner opens 6 Spades, and you hold A, A, KQJxxxxxxxx.
Nov. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One difference this time is the quality of your pips. Playing A and then finessing loses to cashing the AK if there is Hx offside but picks up HHxx or HHxxx onside. Even if the only chance in the contract was the diamond suit, A then finesse is slightly better odds.
Given that the finesse also gains against the long clubs with East, assuming the Q is offside, the odds are a solid 84% for Rajeshwar's line (Gonzalo's line C).
Nov. 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've edited my comment. There are few declarers for whom I would not ask the director to waive the penalty. And I agree with Tom that in serious events I'd also be less likely to ask.
The revoke has been established by the subsequent claim.
Oct. 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted other. I call the director, as you must do when attention is drawn to an irregularity. Players do not have the right to waive rectifications on their own initiative (law 10a). I would (probably) ask the director to exercise his discretion to waive the rectification (law 81 C 5).
Oct. 13, 2019
Damian Hassan edited this comment Oct. 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Cornell Critical Thinking Tests might be suitable for your task. They can be administered from age 10 onwards.
April 17, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not 100% Florian - East might have a singleton or void diamond, which I reckon at about 12% given the spade break. But still pretty good odds, and nearly 10% better than line B.
April 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Line 1 is the better line.

Christopher is wrong about the hands where RHO has a singleton heart. He's right if declarer fails to notice that RHO discards on the first heart ruff, but an alert declarer will ruff a diamond back to hand after winning the A in dummy (so Line 1 as stated is incomplete). So if we know RHO has a singleton heart then line 1 is definitely better, gaining against a 5125 or 5152 distribution with East (in the latter case, you see West discard on the K so can safely ruff two diamonds back to hand.)

Line 1 seems to lose if East started with a 5242 shape, as now East can discard a club on the second heart ruff, and can ruff the K. But in that case, East's last three cards are a trump and two diamonds, so dummy's J must win a trick.
April 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In one partnership, we invert the 2NT and 2 rebids, with 2 showing a 17-19 balanced hand (we play 14-16 NT). Responder bids 2 with an invitational hand, and 2 and 2NT are puppet relays, either to play or to show various minor suit hand types.
March 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sarah, you know full well that the declarer in your slow played hand did not say that he was playing slowly to confound the opposition. Indeed, I believe you apologized for that misrepresentation at the time.
Dec. 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Queen Margaret laments a costly revoke in Henry VI, Part II: “A heart it was, bound in with diamonds.”

Shylock also has cause to regret a careless discard: “Why there, there, there! A diamond gone cost me two thousand ducats in Frankfort (sic).”

Junior bidding seems to cause some squabbles. Florizel and Perdita in a Winter’s Tale are obviously ashamed of their bidding: “Come, come, he must not mark our contract”, and “The heaven sets spies upon us, and will not have our contract celebrated.” Juliet complains to Romeo, “Although I joy in thee, I have no joy in this contract to-night: It is too rash, too unadvised, too sudden.”

Good declarer play does have its reward. Claudio in Measure for Measure boasts, “Thus stands it with me; upon a true contract I got possession of Julietta’s bed.”
July 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apologies, Lilias. An autocorrect error, but my fault for not noticing.
Peter's source is a blog that only ran for a few months. There are a few red flags for fact checkers: it misspells stature instead of statute; it talks about British stature, when UK law generally distinguishes between England and Wales, and Scotland; and it categorizes by IQ, which is not something you would expect in legal definitions.

I went back to original sources, as far as possible. The
1913 Mental Deficiency Act www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/acts/1913-mental-deficiency-act.pdf defines idiot and imbecile in functional terms. This act was repealed by the 1959 Mental Health Act www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/7-8/72 . Idiot as a legal term is cited in the OED going back to 1590, and the earliest mention of imbecile in English law that I can find us the 1867 poor act.
The classification by IQ dates from early 20th century US psychiatry texts, and continued up to ICD-9 (International Classification of Diseases). This was superseded by ICD-10 in 1990.
July 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Liliana, I too would have been shocked if these were legal terms in 2005. Peter's post illustrates another problem with quoting from the internet - it is often wrong. Idiot was a legal term from the middle ages, and imbecile became a legal term in England and Wales from the mid 1800s. Both terms were abolished in 1959. Moron, as David Burn has already stated, was a word coined by Goddard in 1910, and has never been part of UK law.
July 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's a reference to the coroner's report in the Independent (Elizabeth City, NC) of August 30th, 1929.
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83025812/1929-08-30/ed-1/seq-3/
See the top of the page. The coroner, S.A.Nathan, believed the death to be an accident, and that Harry thought he was pulling the trigger on one of two empty chambers.

The Watauga Democrat of Sept 12th 1929 has a paragraph about the funeral: http://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn82007642/1929-09-12/ed-1/seq-3/

The same newspaper, a fortnight earlier, had the rather unsympathetic heading: “He kept his word.”
http://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn82007642/1929-08-29/ed-1/seq-1/ (bottom right of page)
March 20, 2018
Damian Hassan edited this comment March 21, 2018
1 2
.

Bottom Home Top