Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Goldfarb
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 19 20 21 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4 is an overbid. If you're going to overbid, you might as well make a more descriptive overbid with 4. Having previously overbid, North's bidding on again (6 over 5) is silly.
3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit: You say that in these situations fourth hand has to guess what to do. My experience — which I readily admit is at a far lower level than yours — is that fourth hand nearly always finds a bid, and then it is the opening side that winds up having to guess what to do. And quite honestly I think this very deal is a case in point, just as Steve Bloom notes above.
Feb. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The one thing that I demand from my weak NT runouts is that they distinguish strong from weak responder's hands immediately, so I'm with you on this. My own favored system lets you do this with a business redouble, and bid all 1- and 2-suited hands; it gives up the ability to play 1NT-X.

Kit has said elsewhere that he thinks the ability to play 1NT-X — or at least threaten to — is too valuable to give up. Since the worst day of his adult life is better than the best day of mine, I don't think I can argue too hard.
Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I played hand shuffled cards in the Houston Regional A/X Swiss last Sunday. In the first round I picked up a hand with 5=0=8=0 pattern, and then 5 boards later a hand with 29 HCP. Later on that day I held 1=7=5=0.

Of course, I make a point of always shuffling at least seven times.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While we're at this, on page 3 “signals” not “singnals”.
Feb. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Bog standard” would have one more heart and one less of a pointed suit. I'll agree that I would have chosen a takeout double on West's hand, to be sure.
Feb. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wouldn't do it myself, but I don't really see a problem with it.
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know about the Bulletin problems, but the BW MSC problems have been readily available on their site since January 10. I'd agree that asking Jeff Rubens before doing this would be at least courteous. I find that correspondence to editor@bridgeworld.com is usually answered promptly.
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The article is by Philip Martin, who posts here on BW. It's online on his website: https://sites.google.com/site/psmartinsite/Home/bridge-articles/countering-notrump-interference">Countering Notrump Interference

I also use these methods, btw. And they specify that 2NT by either side is scrambling: South clearly should have bid 2NT instead of 3.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From Julian Laderman's Bumblepuppy Days:
The first known document describing (bridge whist) was published in 1886. … it established that by 1886 the earliest form of bridge was being played.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's what I thought at the table. On reflection, though, what can 5 possibly be? Both hands are limited, so it can hardly be any kind of slam try. Since 5 is a bid that can't exist, and that partner has bid it is AI, I'm not sure I actually had any further ethical obligations.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand had a happy ending for both sides, in a sense:

I did bid 5. Partner in fact did have a superaccept of hearts (although I'm pretty sure he didn't intend one): AQ AQxx QJxx Kxx. Opener led the A and then tried a spade — underleading the A would have been a better shot, I think — and I claimed making 5. At the other table, North got to open a strong 1 and our teammates intervened a little over-agressively and went for 800.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think we're presuming that East opened a weak 2 and has turned up with the K and at least one diamond honor.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's a bunch of possible layouts where 4 makes but 6 doesn't — basically anything where West has the Q but clubs don't split 3-2. I think that's enough extra chance to make 4 the better spot.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, now, do we not live in the age of the internet? Mr. Mackay's magnum opus may readily be found on Project Gutenberg. Open up volume 1 and search for the phrase “great advantage”…

the most absurd and preposterous of all, and which showed, more completely than any other, the utter madness of the people, was one, started by an unknown adventurer, entitled “company for carrying on an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is.” Were not the fact stated by scores of credible witnesses, it would be impossible to believe that any person could have been duped by such a project. The man of genius who essayed this bold and successful inroad upon public credulity, merely stated in his prospectus that the required capital was half a million, in five thousand shares of 100 pounds each, deposit 2 pounds per share. Each subscriber, paying his deposit, would be entitled to 100 pounds per annum per share. How this immense profit was to be obtained, he did not condescend to inform them at that time, but promised, that in a month full particulars should be duly announced, and a call made for the remaining 98 pounds of the subscription. Next morning, at nine o'clock, this great man opened an office in Cornhill. Crowds of people beset his door, and when he shut up at three o'clock, he found that no less than one thousand shares had been subscribed for, and the deposits paid. He was thus, in five hours, the winner of 2,000 pounds. He was philosopher enough to be contented with his venture, and set off the same evening for the Continent. He was never heard of again.
Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play it as showing the next suit up. So in the first sequence advancer shows spades, and in the second one clubs.
Jan. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I remember my Charles Mackay correctly, the enterprising fellow in question didn't sell shares in the enterprise itself, he sold spots on the waiting list to find out more about it. And then absconded with that cash.
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At the table I would probably count 1H, 3D, and 5C: DK, DJ, CK, CJ, DA pitching a heart, heart to the Q. West now takes the HA and cashes the DT and I now realize that my hand is squeezed in three suits. I have to pitch a club winner, and West now exits a low heart; I can cash two more clubs and then West has the rest. Down one. As to whether I should foresee this and play differently, I don't know.
Jan. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Doesn't the fourth club get pitched on a heart, whether the finesse is right or wrong?
Dec. 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes.
Dec. 2, 2019
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 19 20 21 22
.

Bottom Home Top