Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Brian Platnick
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 20 21 22 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry,

Danny Sprung has a funny story about Special Alerts.
1NT (P) 2D … “Special Alert”

If I remember the story correctly, Danny & Jo played 2D = transfer to Hearts or some hands with minor suit slam interest.

The opponents, who didn't ask, came into the auction and had a disaster. It seems that “special alert” wasn't enough of a warning for the opponents to inquire, they just assumed 2D was GF stayman and argued with the director that they deserved redress.
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually I like the photo, especially the cup someone placed at the bottom hoping to catch some stray Victory Points.
Dec. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
According to the ACBL website, this is Rose’s 10th NABC victory. 6 of these were in Open events including a Spingold. She also has 8 2nd place finishes (3 of these in the Spingold).
And has won 5 world championships: 3 open, 2 seniors.

When I looked at the list of ACBL HOF members, I didn’t see her name. I am heading to the optometrist soon for new glasses which I assume is the reason for my overlooking Rose’s name (as well as my poor play in San Francisco).

Is there anyone not in the HOF who is eligible with a better record than Rose?
Marty Begen? He’s on the ballot this year. No WBF medals, 10 1st & 10 2nd place finishes in top ACBL events.
Mike Lawrence? I think he refused to be on the ballot (anyone know for sure?)

Congratulations to team Meltzer as well as teams Wilson and Korbel.
Dec. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard,

My point is that the merit for this appeal should not be judged by the number of comments on this thread just like the 1100+ comments on the following thread seem a bit excessive:

https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/selection-problems/?cj=630663#new_1


As to your other point of contention, I say “British” instead of “English” to annoy David Gold.
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff,

Not sure how you are still getting 11 days for my suggestion, must be “new math”

blues - Fri/Sat/Sun

Reisinger - next Fri/Sat/Sun

Soloway is 7 days: Swiss on Mon/Tue. Round of 32 (or 64 & 32) on Wednesday, 16 on Thursday

concurrent with Reisinger are quarters, semis & finals. 4 losers on Friday can drop into Reisinger on Saturday.
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff,

You don’t count correctly.
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cameron,

The discussion seems to be about whether the correct ruling is down 1, 2, or more. So if the other team appealed, that would have merit. But the declaring side arguing for 12 tricks is ludicrous.

In general, judging the relevance of an issue based on the number of posts on BW may not be the best standard. If it were, then after collusive cheating, the most important topic in the world of bridge would be the selection process for the British Women’s team.
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My suggestion, which everyone else hated:

- Start with Blue Ribbon Pairs

- Soloway starts Monday.
— if a very large field (over 120?), 64 teams Q for KO, but first 2 rounds are 1/2 day matches
— if under 120, 32 teams Q - full day matches.

- Reisinger last 3 days with losers of Soloway quarter finals allowed to drop in to day 2.

While drop-ins may not be a popular idea in general, it is very likely that those who have played in day 2 of the Reisinger over the past few years would support this.
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with Marty & Mike,

From the writeup in the Daily Bulletin:

“He said that he spoke to several expert players, one of whom he addressed in the reviewer’s presence. All of them stated that defending 6♠, not ruffing a diamond winner would be a horrible play that no one at this level would make.”

Not only is the self serving, it is utterly ridiculous. He claimed! The defenders don’t have to defend as if he didn’t.

Declarer is trying to assert that when stating his line of play, he also gets to state the opponents line of defense. WTF?

Down 2 + an appeal without merit seems like the correct ruling.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard,

According to Kit, “Dave has what I call an “aces and spaces” hand – control rich but trick poor. He needs trumps and fillers from partner. RKC won't do the job…”

So how about K KQxx KQxx KQxx?

But at the table, I wouldn’t bother thinking about it. Partner bid Blackwood and signed off, which is not an invitation to bid more. I’m shocked that you would suggest otherwise.
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AK Qxxxx KQx KJx
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not clear.
Nov. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“In second seat you hear 1♥ to your right.”

Barry,

Please be more precise. Is 2nd seat where you were sitting when you heard 1H? Is 2nd seat the position from whence the 1H bid originated? If you listen as clearly as you write, is it possible that the 1H bid emanated from LHO, Partner, or even another table? Why weren’t bidding boxes in use?
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sounds like partner has a weak 6-bagger and about 10-11 HCP. Passing could be right at IMPs, but doubtful at MPs. Responding to RKC is clearly right under the rule - don’t try to mastermind when partner has beat you to it.
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry,

Given that the Granovetters book is almost 200 pages, I’m not sure why they call it the “obvious” shift.
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom Peters gives an excellent example. One could make the case that the U/I was a cause-in-fact of the bad result, but not a proximate cause. Just because there would never have been an opportunity to double 4S without the U/I doesn’t necessarily mean one deserves redress.

Another example: RHO bids Blackwood, then over his partner’s response, thinks for 3 minutes and bids 6NT. LHO bids 7NT and your partner doubles.

You lead a heart (dummy’s first bid suit) from: AKQ xxxx xxx xxx. They take the first (or last?) 13 tricks. What is the appropriate ruling?

PS. I was going to make a snarky remark to John Adams about his “you are done” comment, but since my example has nothing to do with Mis-information, I will save my snarkiness for a future John Adams Comment.
Oct. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John,

No, you are not done.
Oct. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I generally agree, except when east discarded on the second heart that should be enough to wake up South. Now had East discarded a diamond instead of a club …
Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard,

You began this discussion by saying that Pass was easy for you as that was your partnership agreement. Then you added that you would pass even without this agreement.

When several of us pointed out that your agreement was illogical, you have argued:
- passing is the disciplined action as it is your agreement
- passing is the correct action even without such an agreement
- passing may well be crazy, it may or may not make sense

So instead of the “I was just following orders” defense to your decision, and instead of vacillating between arguing that pass is correct and it may well be crazy, please answer the following question:

Absent a partnership agreement that passing is mandated, do you think passing is the winning bridge action?
Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I wrote earlier, it is a long time when partner responded to keycard.
Sept. 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 20 21 22 23
.

Bottom Home Top