Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Larkin
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Presumably that's something like beta-blockers keeping your hand steady in archery or somesuch?
Is it the case that if you fill out the correct documentation a drug required for medical reasons you can take it?
Which would make sense, rather than letting anyone take it.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a decent argument for the SBU (WBF?) approach not to alert any doubles. Opps can ask.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And not sure the drugs would be particularly helpful in reducing blood pressure (or maybe was meant to increase it…)
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So, you (South) bid the opp's suit to show a strong hand.
Partner shows spades (probably five) and a few points, or willingness to compete in spades.
You show your diamonds.
Partner now shows five or six spades, bidding game.
You have QTx of spades….
….so you pull?
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But doesn't have the focussed pre-emptive value.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Were you planning a rider to this, presumably DS's, comment?
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would doubling change at all South's inability to say 5 diamonds? You may say no, but the possibilty might put off E/W from doubling in the light of a mix-up. And any thinking by them that a pull out to 5 diamonds would still not be allowed might be one step too far.
In general, doubling on a mix-up can be dangerous.
I would not be keen on introducing the double to the ruling.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the ten is nice.
Either declarer has jack and your lead was …different, or you have led ten for other reason. Either way, East may ruff. They are unlikely to get in to do something else you may be suggesting.

Btw, the title is interesting. Are we to take it that all further “ATB”s will be replaced by “WSTOU”?
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The not the other ones
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I've said before, I think you should automatically ask declarer “what's the plan?”.
Every time.
If we all did it: Every time:
A) It wouldn't give anything away that the declarer has a particular thing to worry about.
B) eventually they would learn to give a brief line in the first place as it SAVES TIME, and that seems to be the main priority rather than playing by the Laws.
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hot button for I too.
(:))
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For that one, could accept “less”
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
MR: yeah, probably. Made a mistake there. Thought I was softening things, making it less of an insult to call it an Americanism (thus trying to keep a Scots-English fraternityism) rather than, e.g. “Slovenly” - totally failing to realise I was now insulting an entire country/continent.

CO: just checking whether fewer people are playing bridge because of my pernickety grammar…I assume not…
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I used to be like that.
Then I decided…
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is it not possible to give a PP for a claim meant to deceive?
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RF, RY …….. ataboys!

CO: am disappointed by the Americanism “might of…”. :)
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BR: You cite the possibility of playing on to prevent someone else from being “forced to play irrationally”, but your example of your doing this seems simply to make your own case, not to help others.
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Golf.
My father was a very good putter. Better than I (for RF), clearly.
Once,
I lagged up surprisingly well, to 2-3 feet from the hole.
He then putted, ending up four feet past…. He walked up to the balls, picked his up (as a “gimmee”), and said, “you've got that for a half”.
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Allow it and allow ANY defence.
Long time ago when first introduced to the multi, I wanted to play a 2NT overcall to mean either a very strong hand, a very weak hand, or something in-between. PArtner had to bid his longest suit, unless there was interference.
Sept. 10
.

Bottom Home Top