Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Alan Frank
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 202 203 204 205
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Dale, I don't see any reason to think OP doesn't know when it applies.
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is there some way East can signal as to whether he wants a ruff? With a stronger dummy, one might signal encouragement in an impossible suit, but that's not an option here.

If West cashes the K, then switches to a heart, he's got to have a singleton to take the risk of never getting back in for the ace.
16 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think East's *plan* was to support hearts, but when the option was to do so at the five level, he changed horses.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Georgiana–sounds reasonable, but they should at least score it properly.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Give him the 8 and a trump lead, and slam has good chances on a squeeze. And perhaps that hand wouldn't accept a slam invite.
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see much point in 3. Partner will think QJx is an excellent holding (as if you held KTxx), when it is garbage. I would either bid the game or make a generic game try (presumably 3).
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It looks like it would be difficult to bid RKCB and if it turns out–despite Scott's conjecture–that partner holds the A, you may get too high. It does seem awfully likely that partner holds at least one club honor. I think that an immediate 6 will get him to raise with both where a slower auction may think you have other concerns. I'm not worried about side suit losers.
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Double would also lead to 4. And you don't necessarily even need the 10–just swap the 10 and 6.
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I were directing a club game, I'd say (in this case) that the ruling is that the defense gets both tricks, but whatever they enter and agree in the Bridgemate is the official score and I'm not going to police that. I'm a bit troubled by the fact that there is no legal way to play the last two tricks to split them. It's trick 12, so even a revoke won't help.
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At single dummy, both slams need clubs 3-2 (though 6 can also use a stiff jack). In addition, 6 needs diamonds no worse than 4-2 while 6 needs hearts 4-3 or for west to have five or two with no club jack.
So I make 6 about 57% and 6 about 61%.
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the hand on page 3, I am amazed that East couldn't bid the grand. Just looking at his own cards, he's already a (very slight) favorite to make all the tricks; given his partner's bidding, they must be a substantial favorite.
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Check out http://tinyurl.com/benitogreen
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With regard to Eric's comment, I tend to feel the same way. However, the question is about results, not errors. Holding KJ432 opposite A8765, of course you should cash the Ace first. However, cashing the King first is costly only 11% of the time. Last time I played, I misdefended and blocked our suit. Didn't matter, declarer had all but one of the remaining tricks anyhow. My gut feeling is that bidding errors are more likely to be costly.
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even when declarer has a strong four- or five-card club holding, a club lead may not hurt, as your queen will still stand up later in the play.
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is really hard to go down two if you play it out, given that North is squeezed on the run of the diamonds. Indeed, it might even make if he pitches all his low spades. (Not that this is material to a claim ruling.)
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
'Alice laughed: “There's no use trying,” she said; “one can't believe impossible things.” “I daresay you haven't had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”'

East's excuse is that he held both red queens. What do North/South have to say for themselves?
Nov. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, what kind of penalty? A zero on the current board, a procedural penalty, a disciplinary penalty, forced to read all 666 comments on Debbie's poll into a feedback machine, something else?

You say “wrong on a specific lie.” Does this lie have to actually exist, or could it be theoretical? In the latter case, what if the declarer considers it to be ruled out by the previous bidding and/or play?

Currently, suppose I hold AKQT98 of trump as my last six cards and claim the rest. LHO heartlessly displays his Jxxx and I agree that he gets a trick. Equity is served, no penalty. Here you propose a small penalty, so we'd need to get the director involved, where currently s/he is not, right?
Nov. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, but Rule 14-6 has the same kind of ambiguity that sometimes plagues bridge:
“When a ball is moving in water in a water hazard, the player may, without penalty, make a stroke, but he must not delay making his stroke in order to allow the wind or current to improve the position of the ball.”
And how do we tell if that is why the player delayed, rather than because he was judging the distance to the pin and the inclination of the green?
Nov. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would say, based on the proposed rule, that in the first case, declarer gets four tricks if diamonds are not 5-1. In the second case, he doesn't–maybe he didn't overtake the jack because he thought the remaining diamonds were divided Ax/8xxxx or he had some other plan in a different suit if the jack lived. I think the second case can reasonably be considered to be the same species as the original AQ82 / K7543 case.
Nov. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You're in 6NT with AJxx AJxx xxx xx opposite x - Axx AKQJT9876. You claim after a diamond lead with “Running the clubs. I think West has KQ of both majors because he opened a strong notrump. If so, he's squeezed for an overtrick.” That seems like a valid claim statement to me. Suppose the defenders object. With Kit's proposal, declarer would get to see all of the discards because they are relevant to his proposed squeeze, so he knows which jack to throw at trick 10. Could a declarer invent a non-existent squeeze in order to give himself the right to see all of the defenders' plays?
Nov. 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 202 203 204 205
.

Bottom Home Top