Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Walter Lee
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Any chance BW can post the first round scores? I have more hope and faith there than the ACBL.
July 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes they stopped updating them. Nothing I can do about that. :)
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I looked them up in my browser history, having clicked on them earlier in the day.
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Chances of singleton club seem to me at least 2 times higher than 3 small.

Why so high? I would expect at least 2:1 the other way.

1. A priori stiff small club vs 3 small clubs is about the same.

2. If west had stiff club he could have switched to it.

3. Lead likely already revealed hearts were 6-4. If you take the explanation at face values, east is marked with the rest of the high cards; the SQ switch looks like Qx, so you can argue the exact shape can be inferred.
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> OTOH I wonder why everyone is so down on the NAP? I
> haven't played in it in years (maybe decades :-)) but when
> I did it was a tough event and one I was proud of winning.

Me too. The NAP still has by far the toughest average field strength compared to the other two-day pair event: http://winklebridge.blogspot.com/2019/03/more-update-on-degree-of-difficulty-in.html .
April 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am all for making the field of national events as conflict free as possible. But I would do that by not creating the conflicts in the first place.

I was disappointed to see the Soloway knockout approved, precisely because it bastardized the rest of the events. Even if you allow drop-in for the Blue Ribbons, you are still left with 4 teams worth of conflicts. And what about the LM Pairs? The BAM? They will be shells of what they used to be.

The fall nationals used to be my favorite national. Now I no longer have a favorite. I used to attend all 4 events, now 3. I will probably drop down to 2 after this year.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The recaps are back up. Hope they stay up!
Oct. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems WBF has deleted all the recaps for the pair events after 4 days. Big thumbs down for that.
Oct. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My partner's bridge rule:

When I make a “creative” bid of 1C of higher, no matter how logical, he won't be on the same wavelength.
Aug. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hahaha. I was sad Roger gets “Lee” on vugraph while I had to be called “WLee”.
July 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congrats on getting a congrats article from stevo!
July 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ACBL fixed it.
Aug. 3, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The endplay also requires LHO having AK of clubs which a few of us seem to have assumed at some point (including myself in the above calculations). I don't see how one can be sure of that at the table.
March 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Presumably LHO is either 2443 or 3343. Note that LHO has Txx(x) of hearts which he could've chosen to lead from, so I'm skeptical of any lead inferences. If anything, the lead actually argues against him being 2443.

The math is very close – virtually tossup if you know nothing about the hearts, but LHO having the HT actually swings things in favor of the endplay. Someone please verify. :)
March 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Neither.
June 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oops you are right. Bad math by me.
June 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To me it's clear to play a low diamond. Declarer's most likely shape is 5=3=3=2 and with three diamonds he's 5:2 to have Kxx as opposed to KQx, so unless he guesses diamonds more than 70% of the time I will come out ahead.

Even accounting for 5=2=4=2 (less likely, but possible) a low diamond still looks percentage to me.
June 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm amazed at this hand you played from 2014 USBC; Board 6 in the following vugraph:

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=33707

In the three card ending, how did you guess spades? On the surface it looked like the odds were 2:1 for split honors but you went against that and was right.
May 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a matter of practicality I would ask isn't this a push anyways? IMO creating special agreements to out-bid the field in post mortem is not a good way to improve results. The problem is whatever you use to describe this hand perfectly for this layout, it will be questionable that it is best use of that bid, and now you have to remember it, and it will be forever before it comes up again, and it will be forever x 2 before you actually win imps from it.

IMO if responder wants to cater to this kind of layout where NT is better, he should just go with a normal choice-of-game route. I realize I don't even have a 6 card choice of game in my arsenal so I would have to choose between checkback (forcing to 4 partner has 3), or 5-card choice of game (asking partner to pick if he has 3 hearts). This will not pinpoint the spade singleton so partner might go wrong, but as both opponents could have (and didn't) show spades at the 1 level, it seems reasonable to not worry about spades at all. In any case I don't even know if I would go this route; it feels extremely unlucky that 4 goes down on a ruff when our side has 9 trumps and I am 7321. But I guess there are other layouts where 3N is better.

Speaking as someone who regretted all the specialized agreements he created that he no longer remembers.
April 7, 2016
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
.

Bottom Home Top