Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Larkin
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's not so much passive as intransitive
March 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nothing much seems to be going on in the second case. Defender doesn't want it to be obvious whether the card he plays is single or not, and shuffles things about. Declarer thinks he might have done it for pne reason, but it was for the other. Doesn't necessarily make a big issue (though why poster so aware….)
The main post I hardly understand. Keep getting RHO and LHO mixed up, and I don't understand how completing what he says is a striaght transfer shows an honour. AM I misreading it?
March 24, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Ace….no, the……”
March 24, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Z declarer
B watches LHO whenever looks at hand (but his at level where maybe we all do)
14.56 B rubs crown of head. No major ducking down.
15.12 Same again
15.20 Same again
15.47 Relaxed laughter at table
15.50 LHO looks at hand
15.53 B puts R fist on table and taps. Then spreads out 5 (poss just 4) fingers
16.15 B does more subtle spread of five fingers
16.28 B waves hand under screen, fingers spread.
Rest of time B looks more to R.

I felt worth writing these as positives and negatives worth recording, and have no idea of hands.
March 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The video shows a couple of riffle shuffles, keeping card at bottom of pack. To be fair, any bridge shuffling includes an overhand shuffle - and would have a cut immediatley before the deal. Not that easy to cheat (though still doable)
March 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
GS I get what you say, and it has some merit to it. However, if we are indeed trying to poll people who will give us an opinion as to what they would do in this situation, and we are trying to get people who are as much like North as possible, then we should really be looking for people who would be “restrained” to only bid 2H.
My comment to LH was simply that this does not include him. He said he would bid 3H first time round, so his opinion is not “useful” in giving us a poll of people like-minded to North. No disrespect to his opinion at all. Just that it is less relevant here.
Using politics only as an illustration; if we were conducting a poll to see if Trump voters would still vote for Trump today, and one guy said he definitely wouldn't vote that way now…..his opinion wouldn't be relevant if we found out he didn't vote for Trump last time.
March 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What if North bids 3N thinking….. we have no agreement here. If partner takes this as minors, well and good. If he does not, I can pull to a minor and then he will definitely know.
Alternatively, he may decide on partner's understanding from partner's bidding - rather than from his failure to alert. Would that be plausible?
As alluded to above, this scenario only holds water if partner does alert, says it's for minors, and doubles 4hearts whereupon North assumes this tells him to pick his minor.
…..but then he would say diamonds.
March 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
MC: Aren't they following scientific method fairly well? They looked at the first info, formulated a theory. They then looked at an entirely new set of “data” and are using their theory to predict the results (spotting the “signals” and predicting what will then be in the hand). If their formulated theory works, when they predict a king, there will be a king. As long as they look at ALL of their predictions, it should be analysable.
March 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RF: i like to silently support you in many of your statements. Partly my natural contrariness in supporting an unpopular position. Partly a balancing act of my inherent anti-english and anti-americannesses (I do work on both of them).
But you have taken this one too far.
You should try readiing the stuff, and watching the videos.
Amongst other things, you wouldn't have to ask about being seen behind screens as you'll see them ducking down before vigorously rubbing a chin or head like the wife has spotted some lipstick.
March 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I must be misunderstaning this. On the contrary, I would argue this opinion should be given no weight at all, as that person would never be in the position we are discussing. They will have bid 3H immediately. Someone who says they would bid 2H, then when given the next stage says “ ah, well now I will bid 3H becuase my diamonds…….. etc….”. Now that would be given weight.
March 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suppose defenders are less likely to hold honours than opponents….so arguably even higher odds.
Could I check that you wrote down 21 predictions, without any other information, and then when you looked up the hands, all 21 were correct?
March 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Arguably, you can't be a 3H bidder immediately and now, since “now” cannot occur in your world.
So people who would bid 3H immediately cannot give a useful opinion (even if a correct one).
March 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Table ruling, rather than table result. RUling was 3d.
I am surprised at so many bidding 3h now rather than immediately.
March 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If possible, it would be best to see both playes and their movements, but not to see the board - where often some cards may be guessed from the play, even if nor clearly seen.
However, I am sure this wouldbe rather tricky.
JL
March 18, 2017
John Larkin edited this comment March 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It may be plausible, but I am not sure it is recognised in any laws or regulations (though may well be corrected in that).
It is of interest that this plausibility is enough for you to again refer to one side as the NOS. When there may well be two. Maybe it should be the POS (possibly-offending-side) and the DNOS (definitely-non-offending-side) …… though, to be absolutely precise, we don't really know that the DNOS didn't look at their opponents cards……..
March 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Like the traditional chess world cahmpionship. A candidates tournament to win the right to play the champ.
March 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
JLehman: sorry not to reply sooner (was at cirque du soleil!), tho JS has explained my thoughts. BIT per se is not an offence. Nor an infraction. Inappropriate use would be. So while we only know that BIT has occurred, it is inappropriate to decide against that pair as the offending side, as only the decision itself makes them offenders.
Oddly enough, it is a genuine instance (rare) of the oft misused “begging the question”; using the fact that they are the guilty pair to decide that they are guilty.
March 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But they may both be non-offending sides.
March 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Following above, would it make a difference if we learn that opp in the post was taking some time over lead, and declarer - realising all tricks are there, tried to save time?
March 17, 2017
John Larkin edited this comment March 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is the question deliberately deceptive…is there a hesitation by North?
March 17, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top