Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Larkin
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 110 111 112 113
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting problem.
If it lands on your head, and you're not lying down (beforehand), is it a meteor or a meteorite?
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Title asks a straightforward question.
A: Can't.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I take it we are not expecting 2.4 million comments this time?
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
See possible typo “club” for “spade”?
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ha. I see the problem. Post says setting “club” trick, when spade is intended.
In any case, making five is correct.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AB correct, plus worth pointing out that the club ruff is not “the revoke trick”. Those are the ones when he did not follow suit in hearts.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice.
“Societies Fair”.
There's posh.
At Glasgow, it was called “The Whippin'”, and you had to go through it to get out of the matriculation area.
Jan. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's OK, it was protected by a wall.
(They put it on the wrong side…)
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RL: Well, it's not. But it would certainly appear so to the opps who were not present all the other times you alerted and didn't have this. Which is probably one reason why I am not with this hyper-alerting stance of things-that-might-possibly-be-the-case but probably aren't.
Alert - in the past, partner has bid 1NT without stopper in…
Alert - in the past, partner has overcalled a 16-18 1NT with 15
Alert - in the past, partner has overcalled a 16-181NT with 19
Alert - in th past, partner has NOT overcalled a 16-18 1NT when he should have…
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am sure that at one time the wisdom was that you could respond 1NT purely on pts (6-9) and shape without stopper in opp suit….but neither player could bid 2NT without stopper.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He can.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe:
Hoist works better when the past participle is being used as an adjective.
Hoisted works better when it is being used as a past participle in the present perfect.
But I still think it may come down to whichever scans better.

Edited to change best to better…
Jan. 16
John Larkin edited this comment Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
…and I love the “firmly on the fence”…
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But they wasn't meaning bridge?…
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You might ask to ensure they still have the agreement you think they have. Indeed, in the absence of an alert, I would think that entirely appropriate. Indeed, necessary.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AViv, I think you are confused about what I wrote.
I very precisely said that there was no Unauthorised Information when there was no Information.
When there was Information, then it was indeed Unauthorised Information.
However, this UI may be irrelevant etc……
Perhaps you should read my comment again.
I think Henrik understood this properly.

If you genuinely thought that I believed UI stood for Useful Information, then…
(But this may have been meant humorously…)
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tbf, not fully explained until later?
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I take it “unassuming cue-bid” is now verboten.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lead out of turn!
Hadn't thought of that.
So…give us an example.
No…don't. Your best plan is to do it as a poll. Don't mention the BiT. Get votes on accepting lead, letting Dummy, not letting dummy…etc…
You are bound to get some votes for all options Then, all you need to do is convince us that the BiT “demonstrably” suggested one, and you've got LAs.
Looking forward to it (meant genuinely…)
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Scans better
Jan. 14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 110 111 112 113
.

Bottom Home Top