Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Sam Lichtenstein
1 2 3 4 5 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While it sounds like a fine (cost ineffective, likely fruitless, but perhaps mildly entertaining] way to promote bridge, I’m struggling to understand the *scientific* rationale for funding this social *science* research project. Like, for example, other than the funding from bridge organizations, why is the sociology of bridge worth looking into, as opposed to pinochle or mancala or horseshoes? Genuinely curious if there’s an interesting answer to this question that’s unrelated to the expediencies of funding.
May 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So you're saying very tall players should be allowed to cheat? (I ask on behalf of those of us who are vertically challenged. :-)
Dec. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you'd get more informative results if you asked people NOT to answer if they'd seen the first part? Asking them to ignore the first part of the poll (as I tried to do) seems like asking them not to think of an elephant.
May 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
May 13, 2014
Sam Lichtenstein edited this comment May 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see 8 likely tricks with play for 9, with 4 likely cold. Seems like a poor bid to me, but what do I know?
Feb. 26, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
West is not a minimum. With appropriate agreements, I think 3NT by west is mandatory over 3.
Feb. 26, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From either recent memory or your entire career, what hand stands out as the one which gives you the greatest pride in your declarer play?
Feb. 26, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No sport that is broadcast on Youtube can be totally dead: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkMVHLG5VcwU-r8MWvuXyCw
Dec. 25, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lolz. But X is still crazy
Aug. 27, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that (non)-Leaping Michaels is awkward here. But it seems playable as long as you make the agreement that over South's double in this position, North's 4 bid shows five cards. With such an agreement passing 4 seems fine. Without heart tolerance (e.g. xx, x, AKxxxx, AKxxx) insisting on a 5-level minor suit contract may not be horrible. It will probably lose 5-6 imps some fraction of the time, but these methods may still be winning in the long run, since identifying +m double fits will improve slam bidding considerably. With spades unstopped, no heart tolerance, both minors, and a somewhat weaker hand (e.g. xx, x, KQJxx, KQJxx) unwilling to commit to a 5m contract, passing 3 doesn't seem like the end of the world.
Aug. 1, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see the downside to rebidding 2 here. Still plenty of time to reach 3NT if it is right.
July 18, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Florin, since you called 3, do you think PASS should deny a major suit stopper, maybe something like Jxx, xx, AKQxxx, Qx?
July 11, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think a little bit of memory strain in bidding systems is healthy. Just like trusting partner's carding in a delicate defensive situation and having things work out well is great for partnership trust, I feel similarly happy when a partner and I pull off a scientific auction using treatments that we've discussed but haven't come up in a while. Also for older players and for people with poor memories (I count myself among them), it seems to me that exercising your memory during the bidding phase is productive. After all, to be a successful declarer or defender requires remembering things more complicated than a few artificial raises. (To be fair, a different type of memory is involved, and I'm no brain scientist, but how could it be a bad thing to try to push one's limits in this domain?)
June 23, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why would you teach someone bridge and not encourage them strongly to try duplicate? And thus why would the beginner social players be so unlikely to try duplicate? It seems to me that someone interested enough to take a class would be naturally inclined to explore the competitive side of the game, especially in a unit with a welcoming I/N program – which I'd hope would be every unit.
June 23, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see it being “way” better than 50%. I guess after a heart lead, best is to knock out the A, and assuming it's with North, to play South for the Q. Am I totally off base? As South I would certainly preempt NV in first seat with x; KQTxxx, xxxx, xx. But if South is a more solid citizen, there could be a pretty strong inference that they have the Q if lacking the A.
June 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was having a lot of trouble coming up with numbers to make this +EV at IMPs; then I realized the problem was posed at matchpoints. I don't really have enough experience to evaluate the EV at MPs. But X still seems very counterintuitive to me…
May 31, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Double is certainly takeout, but with my specific black-suit holding it doesn't have a lot of appeal to me. Switch the black suits, then I'd X (with or without the 3 call). With KQTxx JT9 Q AKQJ, I think it is close, but I'd lean towards 3 (again, with or without the 3 call).
May 31, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
N+3 rather than N+1 or N+2 for any particular reason? To account for occasional ties? Or because of the “accident” notion? By “accident” do you mean a strong team losing early because of bad luck (in which case one would think the Swiss format would give them a chance to catch up), or something else?

Sorry for the naive questions; I've never really thought about the matter before. The lower bound of N (rounded up I guess) is clear, but I don't immediately see why N+3 makes more sense as a lower bound.
May 30, 2013
Sam Lichtenstein edited this comment May 30, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can a procedural penalty be assessed when the director is not called after an irregularity, when said irregularity later becomes relevant and warrants a director call?
May 26, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don't we make game when partner has Kxx, Qxx, QJx, xxxx? I don't think she is eager to bid over 3 with that collection. We're certainly not minimum, but I think it's close between bidding and passing.
May 26, 2013
1 2 3 4 5 6
.

Bottom Home Top