Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jeppe Juhl
1 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Flagged by Swedish players because of what was perceived as political derogatory remarks about Sweden; subsequently removed from BW. Lesson learned …
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I take exception to this comment. As a first generation Jewish survivor of Holocaust; I do NOT like to be associated with “the extreme right”. I am a libertarian, and I ran for the Danish parliament on a libertarian platform, and you, Sir … do not have a sense of humor. In the old days; I would have demanded satisfaction by way of duel. Now; I just shake my head in disgust.
Oct. 9
Jeppe Juhl edited this comment Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great fun to read about about these colorful characters, including Harold, but who was the old chess player … ? My guess may be way off; but it's: Sam Reshevsky?
Oct. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even though that is the case; there is a very heavy indication that North has led from T94 ….!
Oct. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
:I Overlooked it. But there is a very vital point, that I haven't seen described in any of the comments on the other thread
Oct. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hadb't seen it. But they all missed a vital point …
Oct. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, not a huge sample, but sure looks like 1NT is quite a lot better.
April 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It can be done as HU live as well as online. I have the made the (simple) algorithm, but plans to make tourneys haven't come to fruition yet.
April 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
SHAME ON YOU

What a disgraceful verdict … what a travesty!

NOT for Geir; but for the people who rigidly applied the anti-doping sanction rules for a drug that has ZERO percent chances of enhancing a bridge players performance. A few minutes of research will explain why this combination of drugs sometimes is used.

And they give it to - arguably - the best player on the planet. You couldn't make this up.
Feb. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can find a gazillion hands where you would be better off with pass being forcing here and vica versa. BUT … why on earth complicate matters? A rule stating that: “an initially passed hand cannot make a forcing pass” will make life so much easier for you and partner
April 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Zagorin - Diamond. Who would want to miss a match with Fredin on a team…?
March 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am flat out wrong … :)
March 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
EDIT: My reply to Kit below is wrong. I will, however, not delete it …

I am (EDIT: ‘was)’ convinced your argument is incorrect. Please enlighten me … we agree on the following:

West has J98 in trump, dummy has 10432, declarer's length is either four or five. It is unclear how many losers declarer has outside the trump suit. Declarer has played the trump ace from hand and West has seen East follow with …

a) the Q
b) the K

Kit, you write:

“(…) West will always know that it is the KQ doubleton or the contract cannot be set.”

So in a) the queen is always single and in b) East always has the KQ. This leads you to conclude:

That West MUST play the jack the second time around when the queen drops and MUST play low the second time around when the king drops…(against a competent declarer).

This is wrong… or rather: only true in the specific case where declarer has AQxxx and can afford one loser, as you correctly describe. You have ignored the scenarios where the suit is 4-4 and declarer safe plays against getting three losers in the suit..!

May I rhetorically ask: How would declarer play A432 in hand opposite 10765 in dummy in a contract where he needs two tricks in the suit?

He will always take the ace first, of course… and this he will also do from AQxxx when he wants to play as safe as possible for one loser!

If an expert West always plays low from Jxx with 10xxx in dummy after partner followed with the K when declarer cashed his A, as you indirectly are advocating (unless I misunderstand you), then I am fairly certain East will question his partners “expert-status”, since getting zero tricks in defense with J98 in West and the stiff K in East is spectacularly bad. East therefore sometimes has to play Q from KQ, otherwise, declarer will always be able to play AQxxx to no losers on a Jxx-K break (disregarding a grosvenor play of K from KJ). (EDIT: Keep on playing the king, you will give away an overtrick as KW correctly stated).


If that is true, then cashing the ace and playing a low card from AKxxx in hand and 10xxx in dummy must be the percentage play against good opponents when a 4-4 break is a possibility. (EDIT, maybe percentage play against bad opponents)

Your argument is based on the flawed assumption that EW knows exactly how many tricks declarer can afford to lose in the suit. When they do, you are correct, when they don't, you are wrong. (EDIT: No you are not, I am…)

EDIT: This reply is (almost oure) nonsense. Thx to Kit, he made me avoid a mistake in a book about psychological bridge.

It is my arguments that are flawed and (big surprise) Kit's arguments that are correct. By always playing the K from KQ, I am right in that it will cost a trick now and again, but this trick doesn't matter (in IMP's) since it will only materialize when the contract is safe (getting zero losers for +1 instead of one loser for =)

Playing low from AKxxx with 10xxx in dummy after having cashed the ace and seen the Q in East, is only correct against mediocre opponents.
March 5, 2018
Jeppe Juhl edited this comment March 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, you got a good point on this deal about dropping the K from KQ. And yes it is a ‘play-the-player-problem’.

But…! Under the following two assumptions (only partial met in the hand above)…

IF

1) Opponents don't know declarers length (4(5)-4, 5(6)-3, 6(7)-2)

and IF

2) It is uncertain for the defense if declarer can afford to lose more than one trick in the suit, ….

THEN…

… it is always correct to play low from AK!

To put it another way: When the two conditions above are met, leading low is NOT a ‘swindle’ but the absolute best percentage play. One could call it a “reverse restricted choice”. But now, however, it is only correct when opponents are competent players.

These ‘play-the-player’ options when deciding how best to negotiate a certain suit combination are much more frequent than most players realize.

The choices you have when you have to decide to go for a so-called psychological plan or for the mathematical percentage play - are not opposites. They are the flip sides of the same coin. At the end of the day, it is all about what line of play that gives you the best equity.
March 4, 2018
Jeppe Juhl edited this comment March 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1NT
March 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry. 1NT was the opening
March 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With 10-11 it is natural to rdbl and support later. That shows exactly xxx in hearts—- so it should probably say without immediate supp. in H
Feb. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Should have been “without fit in hearts” in the description above
Feb. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suspect partner can see his own hand. He has just been told what I have, and then he tells me he wants to play 3NT. Since when is a player supposed to bid his partner's hand …? it is nonsense to bid anything but ‘pass’.
Feb. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Solution”: South bid 3NT. There is NO downside to this since you know opps have at least 4 making (they actually could make 6 double dummy). Even with EW taking 10-12 tricks in minor NS gets a great score. If West leads a spade, as happened IRL, you get 100%. 3NT is an obvious bid, giving the opposition a possibility of making a mistake. Peter Fredin did this in a tournament some years ago.
Feb. 26, 2018
1 2
.

Bottom Home Top