Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Liam Milne
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just wanted to say cool hand, and to partly negate the first two top-level comments which were both negative. Keep posting!
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have two smother coups in my bag. Both within a couple of months, and both executed by the defence on my behalf…

https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=37478
(3H N, B10)
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted invitational, as that's what I would assume playing in a pickup game with an expert. But I have played it as forcing in most of my recent partnerships.
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It goes further… The detailed display lists all the winners of the Transnationals since the inaugural in 1997, along with photos. The display truly leaves a deep impression of the impact that collusive cheating has had on our game at the highest level.

Recognise some of these names?

2000: Cezary Balicki (POL), Rose Meltzer (USA), Alan Sontag (USA), Peter Weichsel (USA), Adam Żmudziński (POL)

2003: Andrea Buratti, Leandro Burgay, Mario D'Avossa, Guido Ferraro, Massimo Lanzarotti, Carlo Mariani (Italy)

2007: Michel Bessis (FRA), Thomas Bessis (FRA), Fulvio Fantoni (ITA), Franck Multon (FRA), Claudio Nunes (ITA), Pierre Zimmermann (SUI)

2009: Cezary Balicki (POL), Geir Helgemo (NOR), Tor Helness (NOR), Franck Multon (FRA), Pierre Zimmermann (FRA), Adam Żmudziński (POL)

2011: Israeli Juniors as above

Of the seven times the event was held 2000-2011, only twice did the winning team not include a pair later convicted of premeditated cheating. In the display in Wuhan, no mention is made of any of the ‘issues’… No asterisks.

I'm not sure that this is the effect the WBF wished to have with their display but it's hard to miss.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“All countries should boycot the championships” is, hands down, one of the most outlandish things I've ever read on this site
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Where were the devious deeds of the rogues of this article ‘given a pass’ or condoned in any way? I think the stories are hilarious and the deeds, in some cases, quite dastardly. I think it's ok to hold both beliefs at the same time.
Sept. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks all for the compliments on the problem having four different competing ‘answers’! I've sent this in to the Bridge World to see if their Master Solvers want to have a go at it.
Aug. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Less reason to double. You don't need to protect partner because they could have doubled 2 for penalty (having passed 1)
July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Both Wests responded 1NT over 1.

Rosenberg overcalled 2 as North, Gower as East chose an offbeat ‘good-bad’ 2NT and his partner pulled to 3, down three.

Cope doubled 1NT (N), Garner rebid 2 (E) and Holman competed to 2 (S) making two.
July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nope. On the hand dummy had a slam force and was thinking about bidding grand (they had a void).
July 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What you describe is not new. A couple of years ago I saw one of the reigning World Open Pairs champions playing in a 0-10k pairs event.

The current ACBL system for foreign players is broken, but hopefully being fixed. Brian Platnick is working on this and I have hopes that they can come up with something better than the current scheme which is very arbitrary.
July 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Double is still Lightner, so we'll be asking for an unusual lead. Partner will probably lead a spade and hope we ruff. Will this change how many tricks we make, and will tipping off declarer that we have all the trumps and other stuff contribute to them making? I don't think so. Seems very unlikely that all we make is one trump trick whatever the lead. Honestly I expect two down on average.
July 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3NT was the winner here. Partner had an average 12 and was catering for a light shapely double.
July 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great problem. I have no idea.
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First question (with the double) is too hard for me. It's not a bid I can imagine myself making.

Second question: I have been playing fourth suit by a passed hand is artificial, forcing, and shows some invitational hand with ‘annoying shape’ i.e. difficult to show by alternative methods. P-1-1-2-2* won't be a hand that would raise to 3 or jump to 3, for example, but could easily contain some major length.
June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes!! That was impressively quick. Thanks Andy.
June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Spade led, not club.
June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I realised that many of the bidding problems I was posting were of the same theme (rebid problems similar to yours). In my current partnership I've decided to do something about it. We do something alternative with our 18-19 balanced hands (we choose to open 1 and rebid 1NT in a transfer response system, but there are other things you can do e.g. 2m opening showing 18-19 balanced) which frees up the 2NT rebid.

These days we use 1m-1M-2NT as an artificial bid showing a game-forcing single-suited hand with the long minor, may include 3 of partner's suit. 3C asks, then 3M shows the 6+m/3M hand while new suits show shortage there (and doubleton in partner's M), typically 7321 type. Rebidding 3NT over 3C shows stiff in partner's M. Using these methods we would bid 1C-1H-2NT-3C-3H showing long clubs, three hearts and a big hand.

I realise this might not answer your question about what do in natural methods. I don't know the answer to that which is why we've added in the above artificial methods.
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like this! Didn't think of it at the table.
May 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm glad you said so Peter seeing as that's what I actually bid!
May 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
.

Bottom Home Top