Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ian Grant
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 186 187 188 189
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
James:that has pretty much the same effect as a shuffle for the next player.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How can you tell?
If your exercise produces a random deck then examination of it proves nothing. Pairs of cards could have split and rejoined later.
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My wife might feel better with the 1 vote in her favour; thanks Amir :-)

However, I have to say I thought 6 was a reasonable bid; and on another day…

Sadly on this day we would have made A and K:
West held AQT74 , East J532
and -800 turned out to be a bottom; no-one else bid 6.
20 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, technically law 7© says ‘should’ rather than ‘must’ but I would expect there to be a good reason why not. "I can't be bothered' doen't cut the mustard. A few PPs might sort them out.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
…and of course you shuffle your cards before placing them back in the board. This is probably worth one of DB's shuffles.
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Our 1M-4M raise shows a good value raise (7 losers) but with an aceless hand. Stops unnecessary (and possibly embarrasing) key card enquiries.
If partner does ask we show Kings + trump queen.
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You don't say..
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's exactly what I thought, except I rated the choices the other way around….
Jan. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK so not the laws per se; but part of the framework of regulations that govern the game and how it is played.
http://mysteryreadersinc.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/cartoon-of-day-pedants-revolt.html
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's why you shouldn't use any of those words; state number of cards expected, hcp range expected, include expected losers if that's one of the criteria you use.
If its an ‘invitational’ raise tell the opps what you expect partner to hold; i.e. the criteria you are going to use to decide whether to accept or not.
That's it; don't obfuscate.

You might not like hcp as a measure but its the main one used by the laws. Its harder to get into trouble if you follow what the laws do.
Jan. 21
Ian Grant edited this comment Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can't fathom bidding 2H over partner's 2D, if I didn't want their opinion why did I ask for it?
Why not just rebid 2H?
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suppose if one opp has AK tight then that might explain why their partner hasn't bid with a J-high 7/8 card suit.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whatever they are.

At some point Bud you may begin to realise that you are part of the problem and not of the solution.
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I did! (Assuming ‘normal’ stayman is promissory)
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Learn how to use Losing trick count which is much more useful when you have a major suit fit. In this case a splinter reduces your losers by 1, with xxx it would reduce by 2.
So qxx is a worse holding than xxx. Just how much worse depends on the rest of your hand (and partners).
Jan. 20
Ian Grant edited this comment Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Forget the meaningless/contested words and say what you understand by partner's bid. So (using the acbl definition of “constructive” provided by Ray) say “8-10 hcp with 3 card support”.
Why is this so difficult to do?
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bud: what does that mean?
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Jacoby 2NT” gets misused on this side of the pond; not always GF and its rare for opener's next bid to show a shortage.

One advantage of playing lots of own-grown methods is that you can't just say “Grumpy 2” because no-one else knows what it is; so you get used to providing explanations.
Jan. 20
Ian Grant edited this comment Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your question implies some knowledge of what a constructive raise might be; mine doesn't.
Jan. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So we all just need to learn:
“what's 2
“a four-card constructive raise”
“what do you mean by that?”
Jan. 20
Ian Grant edited this comment Jan. 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 186 187 188 189
.

Bottom Home Top