Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Craig Biddle
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 153 154 155 156
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please note that many of the incidents in described in this post are based on my confusion of several deals described to me during a very long phone call.

I have it on unimpeachable authority that, at the table involving the WC pair, (a) nobody ever put their cards back in the board before the result was agreed, (b) declarer was requested to and did continue the play, going down in a contract he should have made, and © WC2 was silent during the play.

I apologize for publishing hearsay. I can only say that I found the situation I described in the post to be very interesting from many angles, and a little disturbing if all of the events described to me had occurred at the same table.
5 hours ago
Craig Biddle edited this comment 5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course they are. But they are not supposed to request a revision of your claim without calling the director.
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, Allan. And the first “Eubie” column appeared in April, 1971. The first problem presented:

1. West A8653 AKQJ10 A K5 East 4 742 1063 AQJ983

South West North East
………….1……2…..Pass
Pass….3…..Pass…..4
All Pass
11 hours ago
Craig Biddle edited this comment 11 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many of the frequent critics of the ACBL here are anything but reflexive. Many others are one-issue hot-button people who have a finger on something that should be looked into and perhaps changed.

And there ARE long-term issues with the ACBL management structure.

Finding the appropriate person to talk to in Memphis for the average member can be very difficult.

They have only recently been willing to confront the issue of cheating pairs; that having been said they appear to be miles ahead of the rest of the world in that regard.

They spend way too much money taking BOD members to every Nationals. One a year should be enough to satisfy the wants of the BOD, with other meetings at more central locations, perhaps in small working groups.

The ACBL totally mishandled the Ghidwani thing, and it cost the membership a lot of money.

The Hawaii Nationals was a financial disaster that was foreseen at the time it was announced by the “reflexive barking seals.”

Masterpoints, with a membership group consisting mainly of septagenarians or more, are an awful tool to stratify events.
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I called an old friend this afternoon, and he assures me that WC1 is a very ethical player, and was not setting out to trap CP1. I trust this friend completely.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That would have been my choice, too. But I would have played one more trick before claiming, and it would all have been pellucidly clear.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you for the analysis, Esko.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you, Gordon. I will send you some more information by PM.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Intentionally, Ed. I don't want you to know who I am talking about, because my understanding from people I know is that he is a good guy.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Melanie, why should you feel guilty about having played in a 0-6K GNT's with a WC medal to your name, when the ACBL routinely lets top foreign players play in MP limited events if they choose to?
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There were eventualities. He was behind on time. As I said in the post, the deal would be in the first 25% of hands in a book aimed at improving I/N declarer play.

Both opponents surely knew that the hand was cold if declarer won the next trump trick in the proper hand. Both opponents knew that anyone playing the 2nd day of the BRP would know which was the correct hand. Both opponents knew that WC2 had defended badly.

Yet, when declarer simply stated that he was going to draw the last trump, WC1 immediately made an invalid claim, knowing that CP1 would possibly be flustered enough to accept it.

Is that what bridge has become? If so, I regret having expended tens of thousands of hours playing, discussing, studying, and promoting the game. But I am still enough of a pie-eyed optimist to believe that most people in this community think as I do, that WC1 was out of line.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
All that is true. But does the opponent putting cards back in the board constitute a concession that does bind partner unless they object in a timely fashion? And if so, define timely? And if not, then is replacing your cards in the board while commingling them with your played cards an act worthy of being warned/censured/penalized (pick one or more)?
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And of course no other possible use of the 2NT response would ever allow partner to show or deny any enthusiasm whatsoever about his hand.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dave's point was that partner is not a lock to have a pitch for the 4th, not that it didn't exist on the actual layout.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@MikeM if responder has interest in a diamond slam, then

A - he has a 4-card major as well. If he fits doubler's major, won't he have slam interest in that major too? And if he doesn't fit doubler's major he can bid 3 himself.

B - he has no 4-card major. He's going to bid 3 then anyway.

So many people get bad results because they subvert good bidding principles to their desire to declare rather than be dummy. Case in point - I see many club players respond 1 to 1m with 4-4 majors so they can declare either major if a fit exists. These same people then bid 2 next on air, and wonder why they are too high in a 4-3 fit.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why is a diamond ruff such a bad plan? If I win the lead in hand and lead a diamond, they are pretty much forced to lead a 2nd trump. I lead another diamond, and voila, a diamond ruff appears.

I don't think that's the best line, though. I think going after clubs is right. When spades are 3-2, not only do we make on 3-3 (36%) but also when the J is doubleton (16%) since ducking the A twice is not a possible defense. And the Jx line might survive 4-1 spades on my left, too, since they won't be able to signal anything meaningful with the Jx, and might guess to shift to hearts. This would be playing me for a high honor in each red suit, and seems more likely than 2 in one and none in the other.

Playing on hearts seems like the best line for 9 tricks, but we are in game. I don't see how to extend our limited resources to 10 tricks if I start hearts immediately. Even if I catch Qxx in West, They now can lead trumps twice after winning their two diamond tops, and I still have a diamond and a club in hand to lose.
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Preempt RKC. Seems clear; partner has preempted, and we play 4 over preempts as RKC in the general case. I obviously can't ask for keys if I don't know what trump is.
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Slam is usually not good off an ace and a king. And with 30 HCP and no shortness, this seems like an outlier case.
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Once I've knocked out the A and nobody has played a club:

A. W won the A - I no longer fear a club ruff, and will pass any spade from dummy if not covered.

B. E won the A and played another diamond. The J is a dicey card for me, I will probably run this to the K, pitching my heart, and lead the 10. when RHO (inevitably, since if he couldn't do this there would be no problem) follows small, I will consider:

If spades are 4-1, I might as well take the deep finesse, since it guarantees the contract when E has a stiff spade, or W the stiff King.

If spades are 3-2 and E has a stiff club, the deep finesse goes -1 if E has xx (3 cases), makes 4 on the nose if E has Jx, Kx, Jxx, or Kxx (12 cases) and makes 5 if E has KJx (3 cases). So it's a pick'em. But when clubs are 2-2 (10 9 opposite J 8 or 10 8 opposite J9) we can't go down by double finessing.

So the double finesse is the way to go, losing on balance only to those who play to the Ace and catch a stiff honor behind.
Dec. 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 153 154 155 156
.

Bottom Home Top