Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Shireen Mohandes
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seen on convention card:
Overcalls: 4+ if male.
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A great clip Mike, thank you. I think there are 4 from that era, as mini newsclips. Further, there are 6 featurettes, and one full length movie. I have only seen one of the featurettes - is very good, and stands the test of time.
Dec. 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Greg, I am sorry but I disagree with you. Bridge is a thinking game. I am fascinated by why a person thinks for so long in that position. I wonder to myself: what is it that they are seeing/foreseeing that I cannot determine? Some of the “cat and mouse” exchanges are fascinating. I agree that knowing the systems/carding brings it all to life a lot more … I try to savour the moment of tension.
Dec. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
About 15 years ago I asked for UK players to play, but think out loud, and I recorded it on video. I was proposing an idea for a tv show. Nothing came of the show idea, but there were some very strong words exchanged after the filming was over. Sadly two of the people have passed away. If people are interested I will put it on YouTube. The show was meant to be aimed at intermediate players, so the thinking out loud comments were at that level.
Dec. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1932 – bridge humour - could be the earliest clip we know about?

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/the-super-forcing-system/query/bridge

Comic genius, IMHO
Nov. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Slightly off topic: one declarer, on seeing dummy, sighed and said “pity”. Her French RHO thought she said “Petite”, and so she interpreted this “small” and played accordingly. Of course dummy had not played a card yet, so that, along with the fact the (a) declarer was English and (b) had NEVER used French to designate dummy's cards … meant that the ruling was fairly clear cut.

Another time dummy went to the bar and shouted to his partner if he wanted a Whisky, in particular, which size? Declarer shouted out “large”. That was interpreted as playing the highest card in the suit (again dummy did not play a card as he was at the bar, getting his wallet out, probably wondering to himself why he was so specific about the drink size)… so it was easy to sort this one out, but less clear cut than “pity”.
Nov. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have recently been researching the life of Adam Meredith for a feature article. He was very keen on Ballet Negre (see Wiki) and sponsored that company many times. He had a partnership (personal and bridge) with Ruth Sherman, a leading American player (See Truscott NYT obit and Wiki) and moved to the USA.

A Guinea is 21 Shillings. And yet another currency is “pin money”. If you went to the haberdashery shop and bought something that was a fraction of a penny (eg Farthing, a quarter of a penny) then you might get these small coins, or they may just give you some pins.

Or you might get a fractional Farthing (eg a quarter Farthing) see http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk/values/fract.html

No, I am not making this up.
Nov. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nigel: I know that you quoted Andy, but I think we all know what he meant, since it was within the context of a very specific discussion, and relating to a very specific situation.
Nov. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just quoting some text which may help (have spaced to make it easier, but from laws)

established usage has been retained in regard to
“may” do (failure to do it is not wrong),
“does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that the violation be penalized),
“should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized),
“shall” do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not),
“must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again “must not” is the strongest prohibition,
“shall not” is strong but “may not” is stronger — just short of “must not.”


source: http://www.acbl.org/acbl-content/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Laws-of-Duplicate-Bridge.pdf
Nov. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
does this list help you in some way?

Take out up to 4S except:

1. Game try: E.g. after 1 M-(Overcall)-2 M-(raise) when no room for game try.

2. Penalty:
(a) We agree a suit
(b) we preempt
© we rebid or respond NT
(d) opponents make 2-suited overcall
(e) we make defined 2-suited overcall
(f) we double 1 NT
(g) we redouble something
(h) we both bid and they protect
(j) We double their TRF or Stayman over WK NT, showing pen. double of 1 NT

3. Lead Directing: Double of their splinter, means lead suit below. Lightener.

4. Responsive doubles. (special: 1M – X – 2M – X =promises 4OM, 2NT = TO)
Nov. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To those who voted “yes”:

Some messages are directed at individuals or subset of communities. Those that are irrational, and without foundation, personal, rude etc, offend the individuals and communities.

Tell me why you want these people to be offended? Do you think it is nice to be attacked and insulted?

Do you think that people like seeing their friends and acquaintances maligned in such a public manner?

I get hurt and offended when people who are strangers to me, and even those that I don't care for too much, are treated inappropriately.

I would hope that if most people saw an offensive and indecent message pinned to a tree would remove the message. I cannot believe they'd think to themselves “let me leave that there so that others can read it, and the person who it was directed at can be offended for longer, and by more people”.

I completely support the judgement of Eugene and his team. I understand and agree with the rules for participation on the forum. And I plan to follow them.
Oct. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff G: re silent claims, it occurs to me that :
(defender thinking time) + (asking “what is your line of play”)+ (line explanation) > declarer stating line anyway from the outset

I agree with your option (see Andy Bowles comment which is fairly similar to your comment). I just wondered if people agree with you, then it may as well be better disallow silent claims.

Claims can be concise, of course :)

There is another point: I never show my hand for silent claims until my partner and I both agree on the claim. But if the declarer states the line, I am almost certain to show my hand immediately.

It is much easier to verify the claim with all 4 hands face up. So by carrying out a silent claim, it can take longer to verify it as I can't see my partner's cards during that process.

Finally, when you all see the cards on the table, then it is easier to notice a revoke. That works to declarer's advantage. So … I assert that
(1) declarer be vocal and specific
+
(2) all players show cards

shows better return on investment for declarer.

The same applies for defence claims (though of course, as we all know there is the added complication that one defender's claim is not binding on the other).
Oct. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In rubber bridge, there is a tendency amongst some players to subtract an ace when responding to blackwood …if you have already “overstated your hand”.

A very much liked player at the Young Chelsea (club in London - duplicate) decided that he would “add an ace” if he had understated his hand.

Despite the obvious pitfalls of this strategy, he was keen to repeat it.
Oct. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was declarer in 3NT. LHO led a heart (the 4th suit). Dummy went down with AXX. RHO said out loud “ooh, you led a heart, what a good idea”. Suddenly she realised what she'd done, and we all laughed it off.
Oct. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
NOt referring to this deal, but referring to (82C) … Let us say that you know that rule, and the chief TD knows that you know that rule. The TD comes to the table, and for whatever reason, provides an incorrect ruling. Your board result will improve drastically because of 82C. You keep quiet and wait till the end of the deal, and call the TD back. Have you done anything wrong?
About 10 years ago, despite my second attempt to get the TD to read from his rule book, he objected, and gave a wrong ruling. Later I collected my attractive adjusted score. I asked the chief TD: “how many times do I have to remind the TD of the rule, and ask him to get the rule book?” the chief TD replied: “If *I* know that you know the rules, then I need you to only ask him once”.
Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In Lille, 1998, a two-sided sheet of paper was handed out. English to French on one side, and vice versa on the obverse. I have a copy of this, and anyone who would like it … please contact me. It is an ideal starting point for the translation project.
Oct. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Bridge At The Top”, T Reese, 1977 Faber Edition, page 114:

“..The field at Baden-Baden was below standard and the British team had one of its best years, winning every match. The Little Major created a great deal of interest among the Continental Journalists - especially when in one match Boris and I abandoned it at half time, reverting to old-fashioned Acol”.
Oct. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you Clyde, I sorted out the link
Oct. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A few days ago a group of us bridge players went to a lecture in London by author and mathematician Simon Singh. His lecture included a discussion about codes. One segment was particularly relevant to some of the discussion here. Please use 4.5 minutes of your time to watch this link
https://vimeo.com/44172155
(the clip is longer, but the relevant part is the first 4.5 minutes)
Of course, many of you know the point he is making.
Oct. 17, 2015
Shireen Mohandes edited this comment Oct. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Giles: are you suggesting that it is ok not to comply with this: “…the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information….”

I am sure you are tying to make a point but I am having difficulty understanding what that is - perhaps you can elaborate a bit more (sorry I don't want to sound rude, I am not being rude, I just don't understand your point)
Oct. 16, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top