Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ronald Kalf
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 81 82 83 84
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No transfers, cuebid=Stayman.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We have a meta-rule „advancers double of a forcing bid by responder shows a top honour“. I expect this to be valid in this case.
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
„What if opener had only 2 spades?“
S/he bids 3 as p/c being sure of at least a 5-4-fit unless 2425. in that case bid 2N.
Oct. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
8 for systemic reasons, with a pick-up 9
Oct. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Looking forward to the next book by Kit as well as Kit’s Korner.
Oct. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can some of the „penalty doublers“ please explain what a penalty double is. I‘ve pmaed what I call „penalty double“ as opening bid strength with a good suit to lead (or play if pard can‘t pass). Most people I know define „penalty double“ as same strength as opps 1N. BTW with my current partner I play Woolsey.
Sept. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My recommendation: stick to your 3N and otherwise use jumps for hands with intermediate hcp but playing strength of 5-6 losers 5-5 or a good 6crd.
Sept. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I ALWAYS think at trick 1! If opps conclude that I have a reason they are correct: I think about how to defeat the contract (or reduce overtricks).
Sept. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Missed that too, now changed my vote.
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
X is 100% clear: train the guns. From our meta agreements I would expect to be on the same wavelength with the rest: 3m FG with the corresponding major, 3M mildly invitational, 3N rare (we would usually start with X) but tp.
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Greg, thank you for a clear explanation of the case against FN. A similar case against the BT can no longer be made because an essential part of the data is missing. This is something Mr. Wilsmore doesn‘t (want to) understand.
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Shouldn‘t it also show at least doubleton in the suit bid? If you can rely upon your RHO to only pass if (jin this case) 2 is better then 3 you can probably work it out. But can you?
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BTW how would the bidding be after (1)-1N (Raptor)?
Sept. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I‘m 100% sure that I don’t want to defend against 4 doubled or not. chances are that both 4 and 5 or 5 make. Pard should have K plus some. If some is A we might even have a slam depending upon how good a fit we have. N is bidding upon distribution, probably 5-5. The second suit is more likely to be because with N could have suggested 4 in case S is 34xy. If I bid 5 I‘m on my own from there on. Pard will never bid and I will have to double 5. Ergo my choice is 4N.
Sept. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The data is not limited with respect to the number of deals, it is limited with respect to completeness. In order to prove your assumption you need to correlate the deal data with behaviour at the table (coughing, way to place the cards, cigarette lighters,…). Your „prove“ is based upon BT taking an action that you wouldn‘t have taken (because you don‘t understand their system, are not as good a player as they are,…) and these actions win x times and lose y times, where x>>y. David Y thankfully showed that you can find deals where you can apply the same (il)logic to successes of the Americans.
I‘ve looked at bridge from both sides now, from win and lose and still somehow, it‘s bridge illusions you recall, Mr. Wilsmore you don‘t know bridge at all (Joni Mitchell adapted by Ronald Kalf).
Sept. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David C., I too am confused.
Sept. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ron, I‘m serious. Please let us know your „other“. Like the majority, I think that from the options given cards is best. But if you have a better solution, I‘d like to know about it.
Sept. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Table feel = Inferences at Bridge (by Marshall Miles). Suspected cheats can be explained with table feel. Cheating can give circumstantial evidence if you find a correlation between behaviour at the table and good results by inexplicable actions from a large amount of data.
Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cornelia, do you also want to forbif falsecarding?
Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, did you make the same comment in Mr. Wilsmores article? There are so many comments there, that I might have missed this one.
Sept. 22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 81 82 83 84
.

Bottom Home Top