Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Larkin
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 47 48 49 50
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
MS: It does seem a bit of a shame that having an ethical partner and knowing he/she is ethical has resulted in your having “UI”.
29 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good question. Don't really know. Support to p's suit is a “step-up”, but no specific outline for other suits. I just decided I had to “get in the road”, not advertise my weakness, and give partner another suit option …. seemed natural….and only later
36 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As in “Football Association”.
49 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BH: I did the first one last night; 1d (X) 1s. with 98xxx T9x x Jxxx … thinking very little of it.
But afterwards wondered if this was a psyche.
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Psyching with one partner sounds dubious…
11 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“… computer run of results from the month preceding the event…”
11 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
LQAI
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
…and?…
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Spooky.
Now realise that in Americaland (or bits of), I posted this around that time….but that wasn't the point (and would be weird if it was precisely then)
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3.35.
Approx.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks all.
Did indeed intend to add-on.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Suddenly I feel so foreign.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
18-19 must feel left out.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But you yourself are more a 3SDs than a 2SDs?…. for “comfort” (the first comment mentioned Pharma trials…. and I am never comfortable with a p<0.05)
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So declarer can insist that one of these exposed cards (and which one) is to be led?

Edited/addition. Indeed does insist. I assume therefore he cannot insist on a different lead?
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Besides… Trouble is his middle name…..
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is probably a difference between your being clearly convinced and the evidence being clear and convincing.
MAR: didn't quite understand your description of the rather large range.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Now that's what I call precision.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Two weeks ago, playing at the “no fear” afternoon club game with ( very senior in years) random partner; when on lead, he started laying his hand out as dummy.
I called the TD to help out the bemused opps.
Partner ended up with three small diamond penalty cards, and spent the entire hand in a dwam (Scottish fugue), saying pleasantly at the end that in all his 40 years playing with an internationalist partner (which turned out to be true….though not in internationals) he had never heard of such a ruling.

As a rulebook aside for the experts. As it happens, he led one of his diamonds as simplest plan. However, since he deliberately placed his diamonds on the table, would he be obliged to lead one of them?
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yep.
Agree possibly an irrefutable point
Otherwise, every time you make a “take a view” type decision, you will have to consider all bids by your partner up until then….wonder if they could possibly have misbid….wonder what misbid they were most likely to have made…wonder what that would suggest you should do…etc.
And this when NOTHING untoward has occurred.
Which makes me wonder whether whether MS you did indeed spot something at this table, and deep down you can feel it?
July 17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 47 48 49 50
.

Bottom Home Top