Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ben Thompson
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 25 26 27 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bidding 5 serious (so we're in a forcing auction if they bid 5) whereas actually bidding 5 isn't serious and we can gutlessly pass them out in 5 subsequently
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice little earner for the gold medal winning Singapore open team:
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/sport/singapore-contract-bridge-gold-award-snoc-asian-games-10660112

S$320k is about US$235k

The national bridge association gets 20%, the team splits the rest.
Aug. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's an opportunity for inferential insults in there!
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Ed. All of our information WAS available to the opponents. All of their information was NOT available to us. And this was a world championship - ACBL rules don't apply, even the sound ones.

Full disclosure doesn't mean explaining every last nuance of every bid you make the moment you make it. Excess disclosure is a tool used by some people (inside and outside of bridge) to conceal or confuse.

Full disclosure means providing a concise, correct and comprehensible explanation - and then more depth as required.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was indeed about a 2 response
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Extremely Full Disclosure can actually obscure the core meaning and serve only to confuse. Should one say “game forcing”, or “most game forces”, or spend a couple of minutes detailing the 3 types of game force and the 14 exceptions?

Of course practicalities mean players often give a summary explanation, particularly where it's not obvious that the long explanation makes any difference to anyone. Everyone does it, and everyone knows everyone does it.

If your defensive method depends critically on a subcase of the summary explanation, and the meaning of your prospective bid changes significantly as a result, the natural thing to do is … ASK FOR MORE INFORMATION. Happens all day every day.

Same as if your opening lead, or defence, or whatever depends on more detail.

Of course you have to judge how and how much you explain according to the skill/experience of the opponents and the level of the opponents. For example, less experienced opponents may not know to ask for more information, or may not feel comfortable doing so. That was most definitely not the case here.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Depends. If 2 was a clear game force, which it probably wouldn't be in an unestablished partnership, the X would be penalty. If 2 is more like natural F1, then X would be values; more defensive than offensive but not a clear penalty statement.
Aug. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had a weird situation in the world pairs in Wroclaw. After the play my screenmate and I both called for the director for incorrect explanation.

Heated discussion ensued. Basically, my partner had bid 2C and explained it as “game force”. I explained it in more detail - there were a few different types of GF possible. The other guy had X'd which, according to lefty meant one thing over “game force” but something else over the more detailed explanation.

My screenmate butchered the defence to 3NT multiple times and, in my view, was trying it on. I thought his claim about the X was 99.83% hokum (if it really made a difference the doubler was a high-level player and likely would have checked; I expect one of them just had a forget). As luck would have it, he had no documentation to back it up. That day or the next.

As it happened, the meaning of the X affected our bidding and, in essence, meant we didn't try for a slam that might have made. Particularly with The Butcher's assistance. As luck would have it, we DID have the documentation to back our claim up. At the table.

For the irredeemably curious, it took the directors a while to work through the process (and the confusing sequence of complaints) but the table result stood.

Prime example of a screen-created kerfuffle. Without screens, they both would have heard the one explanation and, even if their story was true, and even if our explanation hadn't gotten to the detail that changed the meaning of their X, they both would have been on the same page. And then WE would have heard one explanation and proceeded accordingly. There's still room for information accidents in there but quite a bit less.

Not advocating against screens, but they don't come cost-free.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Heh. And good luck to you and Jamie and Renee in the trials too. Especially Renee :)
Aug. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are you thinking of this ending? 1st problem in the book; are trumps with the lead annoyingly in dummy

-
K8
10
4
- -
AQ 109
QJ 95
- -
5
J65
-
-

If so, the position's a little different. This one's a non-material squeeze - West throws a , which doesn't concede a trick by itself but does enable you to ruff a back to take the finesse.

Good luck in Wujiang, by the way!
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I, and many Aussies, still think of the backwash squeeze as the Seres Squeeze, named after the great Tim Seres who discovered it at the (rubber bridge) table. Always nice to make a little money out of your discoveries :)

This, however, is a simpler and more common ending. I wouldn't be so bold as to claim it for myself!
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cool squeeze!

A mole squeeze is a kind of vice squeeze with the added bonus that the non-squeezed player is then endplayed to give away a trick in the suit with the vice menace (or since the menace is a little weaker than the standard vice menace - the mole menace).

Some thing like

AQ8
-
-
x
J10 K9x
A -
A -
- x
x
K
K
A

Swap the 8 and 9 and it's an “ordinary” vice squeeze

The menace on the actual hand doesn't lead to East having to give up an extra trick, so this isn't a mole-type squeeze. If the menace were mole-type, it would have to be a 4-card ending, and East could defeat it anyway by ducking the A at the next trick.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As you should be - quite the rare object of beauty!

Sadly I tend to remember the not quites, the near misses and the oopses.

One of my sob stories is an entry-shifting squeeze that I couldn't pull off because I had to be in the wrong hand at a pre-critical moment and so I couldn't take the ruff I needed to balance the trump position.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As originally written, the vice guard is meant to sit in front of the vice menace, as in your example, but I suppose there's no technical reason that has to be the case. Pinning an honour works just as well.

And of course the low part of the menace on the actual hand (ie the 10) is not in the same hand as the high part (ie the Q).

In essence you're saying my ending could perhaps be called a reverse vice squeeze - reverse as in the menace is split (the EW hands can be swapped; ie it's an automatic squeeze)
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is kind of the wrong question. If you think your hand is worth one bid, then you should make the one bid that describes as much of your hand as possible - a takeout double.

If you think your hand is worth MORE than one bid, then you should start with the bid that gets the focus feature across first (ie bid your hearts) and reserve the flexible bid (ie the X) for WHEN you have to have another go later. That way partner will have a better idea how his hand fits with yours and where, if he decides on “play”, he should place the contract.
Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it's time for some on-point Latin from David Burns
July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“from the heart of my bottom” is a seriously underused phrase, whether unintentionally or not.
July 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even if a pair play pure suit preference in this situation, there can be a very useful difference between slow and fast, especially when they don't have many spot cards to play with. Similar with attitude. There are several ways I see the speed differential played, almost always unintentionally - yet successfully because pairs subconsciously learn each other's tempos across time.

I have zero sympathy and zero time for expert pairs that do this because they know exactly what they're doing (and they don't need 20 seconds to send their UI), but I try to be understanding with everyone else and find some way to get the message across gently that they really should be trying to be smoother in their tempo
July 26
Ben Thompson edited this comment July 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are certainly layouts where you can make 13 tricks, even with the break. You'd have to diagnose the layout but in some variations you'd even get to play a grand coup.
July 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe. You could play something like:
4 = end signal (ie bid 4 and pass my next thing .. unless you have a rock, so there's a bit more work here)
4+ = whatever positive things you want to prioritise

Gives you 3 extra bids to get useful messages across, eg opener can show a 5th in a positive way without getting overboard, just in case there really is a slam there.
July 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 25 26 27 28
.

Bottom Home Top