Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Kopera
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 546 547 548 549
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What Al said…
4 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess what I'm missing is GF hands with a primary fit and no outside suit he said (thinking that the implication was that any GF hand with a primary fit would JS).
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At matchpoints, I can live with giving up science (by rebidding 3NT).
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
12. Treat everyone as if you have the virus.
April 1
Michael Kopera edited this comment 20 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“if I have a fit with partner, I am unable to force to game”

is confusing me, sounded like anything other than a jump shift denied GF values with a primary fit, ie there was no way to describe (say) 2=2=3=6 GF in response to 1 other than via a JS. Probably just me, won't be the first time…
March 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So the 2-level jump shifts are artificial? How do they differ?
March 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Blue?
March 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My use of “v4” may be confusing (at best), what I am referring to is the Flash version afaik.
March 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My url to what I've been calling v4 starts https://www.bridgebase.com/client/currelease4 , that's where I'm getting the “4” from. Sorry for any confusion – what should I have called it? It uses flash, so v2?
March 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've had some problems logging on with v4, often needing multiple attempts. The few times I've tried the latest version, no such problems.
March 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Exactly, thx.
March 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To clarify (or confuse further), the partnership has no written agreements as to game tries, presumably whatever we think “expert standard” is (but nothing artificial like short-suit tries).
March 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fair enough, but to me passing seems most opportunistic, cue-bidding seems problematic. Funny, in a way I feel better about defending 2X than 3X, at least if I'm wrong, it is not a big number.
March 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
s were solid, s headed by the Q.
March 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The choice at the table was 1NT, a choice that would not have occurred to me. The responses suggest that was a reasonable reaction.

FWIW, my policy is that unusual NT and Michaels* type bids are always 5-5, thought it was the partnership policy as well. Guess only for me.

Thx, all.

*Some play that (1)-2 is 54M, I have sympathy given the similarity to Landy (ie 2 asking for longer M).
March 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had the other hand, noticed that this hand took a long time to decide to pass (sure, it was the internet, still…), my choice. The strange thing is that it took even longer for the 2 overcaller to pass.

An interesting aspect was that this hand was able to determine the distribution around the table after dummy came down (K lead):

Q9
9
982
QT98765

details left to the reader. It took doubler longer, but then he had an explanation for overcaller's hesitation.

Thx, all.
March 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A cue-bid seems (to me) all too likely to reach an inadequate strain and/or level.
March 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do we get the lead problem next, lol?
March 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Specified as no short-suit tries.

Yes, that editadd was in place hours before this comment.
March 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The constraints generate a script that can be seen using the advanced tab, not that that helps running in the new version.

EditAdd: that allows for copy/paste (although new version seems to use ctl-c rather than a dropdown).
March 30
Michael Kopera edited this comment March 30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 546 547 548 549
.

Bottom Home Top