Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Phillip Martin
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 130 131 132 133
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What precisely is UI to partner? Just my possession of the K, or the fact that my actions may be based on the fact that he is required to pass at his next turn? If the former, I would pass. If the latter, pass isn't going to work. If I pass and act later, partner is required to play me for a totally different hand. Double seems my best shot. If the opponents decide to sit, we might beat it. And if LHO is afraid to gamble the whole board on a speculative pass and produces his normal call, we are back on track.
5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's your reaction? I find problems like this fascinating. Many bridge problems we encounter are just repetitions of problems we've seen and solved–or not–over and over again. Now–finally–we have an unfamiliar problem that's going to require some creative thinking!
5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I gather the Q was offside.
5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see anything wrong with playing for an opponent to make an error, even if that error is mechanical. Some of the most imaginative plays I've ever seen revolve around this theme. I once saw Marshall Miles make a grand slam with a trump suit of AKQ109xx opposite xx with Jxxx offside. He played a low trump from dummy. When RHO showed out, he played the 10 in tempo. It didn't hurt that his LHO's nickname was Rocket. Was there anything unethical in this? I don't think so. In fact, I was impressed. I might have thought of such a play in the post mortem, but I never would have been able to find it in tempo at the table.

The next play I didn't witness, but I heard about it: Marvin Kurtz was declaring four spades. Trump were drawn. Dummy had AQ10xx of clubs opposite Jxx in his hand, and he needed the club finesse for his contract. He was pretty sure, however, that the club king was offside. So he led a trump from his hand. His LHO discarded a club, and he called for the club queen from dummy. RHO, who obviously was not paying full attention, played the club king. Again, this is a play that would not have crossed my mind, and I think Marvin deserves enormous credit for thinking of it.

In short, you're supposed to be paying attention when you play bridge. If you aren't, and if your opponent finds some way to take advantage of that fact, I don't think you have anything to complain about.
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Clearly had the player put his cards back in the bidding box without saying anything, everyone would assume he had implicitly passed and the auction was over. Players frequently end the auction that way–without displaying the final pass. Should his comments change anything? Considering his comments were improper, I don't see how he can benefit from them. So I would say the auction is over.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Someone I didn't know once finessed against me and duly lost to my J10x. I was highly insulted. Maybe he didn't know me either, but I was playing with Marshall Miles. That should have been some indication I wasn't completely clueless.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 2 is natural. The methods over 2 weren't specified. I play that as a non-forcing take-out double of hearts.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At trick one I discourage to suggest a diamond shift. At trick three I give count as loudly as I can afford. That much is easy. But I haven't the slightest idea which trump I'm supposed to play. I would think hearts are out of the picture, since partner either has the ace himself or will find out soon enough that I don't. If so, then I should play the 8, showing diamonds, in case partner couldn't read my 4. The fact that no above seems to agree with this illustrates why I hate suit preference in trumps.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We don't know what suit North has, but neither does South. Maybe partner has hearts stopped. If not, maybe South will guess wrong. It would be nice if 3 showed a spade stopper, but that's wishful thinking. There is no reason you can't have a real spade suit.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Last time, I bid 2. This time, I'll try the Dave Beer route.
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The deuce should not confuse partner–or trick declarer. It's normal to lead lowest in notrump in a suit bid by the opponents. Sometimes it's necessary for technical reasons, so it makes sense to do so by agreement.
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I tried a heart last time. I'll try a spade this time.
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know it's wasteful to have two chances at the same problem and not to try something different the second time, but I don't see anything else I want to try. I'm bidding 5 again.
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It makes sense for 4 to be a slam try in hearts. But if you haven't specifically agreed that–or agreed to some general rule that defines it that way–it should be natural by default.
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I’ve seen the inventory. I suspect most collectors could sell off duplicates of what they already have (perhaps the Bridge Worlds alone) to recoup more than $2500, then keep the rest. So, I agree with you. Free is wrong. You’re getting the library for a credit.
Dec. 9
Phillip Martin edited this comment Dec. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just a suggestion. The next person out there who wants to dispose of an extensive bridge library, you might consider auctioning it off rather than, in essence, offering it for free to the next person who happens to log into Bridge Winners.
Dec. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So one director ruled the hesitation suggested passing and disallowed the pass. Another ruled the hesitation suggested bidding and disallowed bidding. I have to say the second ruling makes more sense to me.
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Last time, I bid 3. This time I'll bid 4.
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you think 2NT is a favorite to go down, what scenarios are you envisioning where double has a negative expectation? Our teammates are scoring +130 in diamonds or +140 in hearts? Our teammates are bidding and making a game? The opponents bid with our cards and go minus 200? Those are the only scenarios I think of, and they seem unlikely enough that I'm willing to pay off. The only relevant consideration is whether 2NT is 51% or better to go down.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The a priori odds you are using apply when dealing from a deck with 13 cards in each suit. When you are dealing from a deck with 7 spades, 8 hearts, 7 diamonds, and 4 clubs, they don't apply any more. That's why you need to count cases. You are correct that counting cases can be misleading if you consider only one suit, but if you count the cases in each of the four suits and multiply them together, that is perfectly accurate.

I'm not sure how to respond to your last paragraph, but I'll try. “If East has only 3 spades, he can't be 4441, can he?” Yes, but that's not relevant. He has just as many ways to have 4 spades as to have 3 (35 to be precise). We take the other suits into account when we multiply in the number of cases for those suits.

There must be something in the literature than explains how to do this, but I'm afraid I don't know where to point you. Maybe someone else knows.
Dec. 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 130 131 132 133
.

Bottom Home Top