Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Wenble
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Per David B's comment, even if you know that your opponents are good enough to recognise a double squeeze when they see one, a statement such as “I claim the tricks on a double squeeze”, however macho that might make you sound, is inadequate.
Nov. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to double squeeze

(Not as good as Scott; nor, for that matter, as good as Burn's)
Nov. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nope, don't think so. I remember (or at least, I think I do) the stars we played against, and you and David weren't amongst them. (We played - and beat - Martin Hoffman in the final round; another sad loss to bridge this year)
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. Neither suit bothers me
Nov. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not nearly aggressive enough. Better:
2 = 5 hearts + 4+ minor
2 = 5 spades + 4+ other
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Alfred Campoli trophy is played for annually at Thame Bridge Club.
Nov. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If ‘1 or 4’ is the most frequent response, as the poll currently suggests, then there is a case for changing the meaning of that response to ‘1, or 4 without’ and making one of the higher responses ‘2 without or 4 with’
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK, it's time to clear up the uncertainties I seem to have created.

First, I belatedly hasten to add that this wasn't my auction. I wasn't at the table. In fact, I wasn't even in the room. I came across the deal when scrutinising the club's results. I invented the auction to show a deal where the 0-3 response to key-card was ambiguous. But unfortunately it wasn't a great example as with two small clubs it's a hand for control-bidding, not asking. (The one pair who reached 6 bid 1 - 4 - 5 - 6, I learned afterwards, which is a much better auction in my view. Opener of course had the three-ace hand I postulated in OP).

2NT is not GF, but does promise 4-card support. The method works well, even when a shortness-showing bid by opener does not promise extras, since either hand can (attempt to) sign off in 3M. (I accept there's a case for opener's 3 rebid to show a minimum, but that's not how I choose to play it)

The raise of the shortness showing bid is an application of Splinterwood (see Bridge World July 2008). This too works well when used on a suitable hand.
Sept. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 is mandatory with a shortage; (but 1 - 2NT - 3 would show extra values)
Sept. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Prompted by the OP, I went through my old WC books for examples of ‘strangeness’. The one I posted was the first I found. Because I'm not stuck on a desert island, I stopped looking for others.

Of course the poll proves little. It was intended only to corroborate (or not) my own opinion that the 2 bid was ‘strange’. None of 23 voters chose it. That was sufficient for me to reveal the origin of the hand in the above post.

Null hypothesis: Garozzo was a world-class player, whose judgement in the 1960s was better than 23 decent but not world-class (apologies if I upset anyone with that description) in 2018. A simulation would justify his decision to bid 2

Alternative hypothesis: Garozzo had an idea of what his partner held.

Perhaps I should create a poll for THAT.
Sept. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yesterday, I created a bidding poll with this hand:

AK985 4 1084 KQJ3

and the auction LHO 1 RHO 1 LHO 2 RHO 2; your call?

At the time of writing there are 22votes for Pass and 1 for Double

Nobody (fortunately) recognised the hand as Board 64 from the USA-Italy match in the 1965 Bermuda Bowl.

Garozzo bid 2

Of this, the World Championship book says: “South’s bid of two spades was well-judged. He could see good playing prospects in spite of the fact that the bidding marked five spades on his right.”

No doubt he could see that. North’s assets included QJ and AQ

From which I conclude:

1) Once your eyes are opened, ‘strangeness’ appears everywhere.

2) Hagiolatry is part of the reason that any untoward behaviour by the Italians has not been unmasked sooner.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Has Burnn erred? Surely nnot!
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AW has collected evidence, compiled over months (years?), that the Italians cheated. In doing so, he has become convinced of their guilt. Some of that evidence has been presented in the OP, but apparently there's lots more, as we keep getting drip-fed titles of additional chapters.

Superficially, what we have read so far looks persuasive (more so, say, than Truscott's evidence against Reese-Schapiro), but some more sceptical posters are not yet persuaded.

I must say that if I had undertaken this tedious and time-consuming exercise, I too would be annoyed if people didn't believe me.
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From Henk's link:

“The first interesting swing occurred on board 2, when Koytchou, for the US, opened 1♥ on this holding. Yes, an outright psyche, 1st seat, and not something you’d see in 2017 at the start of an important match. The auction continued as shown and the full hand shows that partner must have seen these psyches before. Perfectly acceptable in 1957 but not in 2017 where this would be considered a fielded psyche and thus illegal method.”

If I were prone to making psychic bids, and my partner knew that, and there was something on my system card to that effect (and that probably amounted to full disclosure 60 years ago), then I would certainly want to get one in as early as possible in order to try to rattle the opposition. Remember that at this time the Italians had no reputation or track record.
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not convinced that online is the panacea.

First, there was mannerisms, BITs, pens, cigarettes, etc.

So they introduced screens.

Then there was foot-tapping.

So they extended the screen beneath the table.

And still the c***ts found a way around that.

Does anyone seriously imagine that playing in separate rooms on tablets is c***t-proof?

It's just an arms race.
Sept. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“1. Canape does not equate to artificial”

No, and neither does a strong 1 opening. But it (they) were sufficiently unusual in the 50s and 60s to have befuddled the top American players
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The post prompts several comments, somewhat unrelated to one another.

“The gods have feet of clay”. I had always felt that the American accusations of cheating were sour grapes on their part. It seems perhaps they were not.

If this post is characteristic of the forthcoming book, then it (the book) must surely be favourite for Book of the Year.

I don't understand the relevance of the BT being 20-1 on to win. Surely if you were trying to organise a betting coup, you would want long odds, not very short odds?

Perhaps the creation of complicated artificial systems, from Roman Club through Neapolitan and Blue, was a deliberate attempt to conceal cheating. (Disclaimer: I played Blue Club for two or three seasons and found it the most accurate and disciplined system I have ever played)
Sept. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I favour 1m-2M as weak with five cards in M and four cards in m. This is similar to reverse Flannery but allows opener to bail out in 3m when he has no fit with the major. (Works better when both 1 and 1 promise four, but it's okay in a 5cM system too)
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think there are better alternatives. On the basis that all opening bids above 2 should be obstructive, one would want to use them as frequently as possible. If all these bids promise a six-card suit, you are missing out on Ekren, Lucas Twos, etc. (see http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/which-set-of-opening-bids/)
Sept. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I could write 1000 words on why second-round transfers are superior in this and analogous sequences, but in essence it's for the same reason that first-round transfers are superior: they extend responder's vocabulary.

I play them as FG, largely because there's extra complexity in including the option of bailing out in 3M or 4m and the advantages of doing so are minimal.
Sept. 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
.

Bottom Home Top