Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Shireen Mohandes
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about XX? what does that mean?
May 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No 2: playing 4 card Majors, this shows constructive 3-card heart raise, with values in spades.
May 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
written in 2008, this one page article called “A day in the life of Martin Hoffman” will remind us of this lovely person.

http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/magazine/day-in-the-life/martin-hoffman.pdf
May 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Michael, you've explored some interesting options.
May 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Allen

The double is Rosenkrantz, asking for one suit below the splinter suit. In England, and WBF, this is an alert.

Actually, pass is also alertable too.

Cornelia
I really like the tablet idea. I was not criticizing the innovation. I was only pointing out the potential for new issues.
May 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cornelia, many problems will go, think about this situation:

SCENARIO 1: Tablet
South opens 1 Spade, West passes, North bids 4H (intended as splinter, alerted as such to both opps, but … North has forgotten the system). East calls Double (requesting a diamond lead) and alerts. South now knows that partner has splintered.
Let's assume this south is honest and does the right thing…

SCENARIO 2: Screens
Contrast with … (keep in mind that North and East are screenmates)
With face to face, and screens…

South didn't alert the 4H to West, assumes it is natural, and assumes the double made by East is penalties. South will pass with many hands. West passes, and North now makes some bid (knowing that South made a forcing pass, which is presumably encouraging). When this comes back to south, south now knows what the system is, and that they've made an inadvertent forcing pass.
Again, we will assume that south is honest and does the right thing.

But let's imagine a game where south is not so honest … the first scenario, nobody would ever know that south has poor ethics, how could anyone know that south was reminded by virtue of the opponent's double?

In the second scenario, West knows that south has been reminded of the system.
May 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for posting. Very interesting. Anyone know the outcome of the Cuba event?
May 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I understand that “post truth” means “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”
I wonder if it is a suitable phrase to use here to describe some of the messages in this thread?
May 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
suppose I have K3 in dummy, and singleton 2 in hand. Dummy has no entries. I play towards the King, LHO plays ace, so I took a “winning” finesse, but my play did not create a trick that I can utilise (without a helicopter). Not sure that David Burn's definition works … the oppo gained by playing a higher card.
April 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually - I don't bet very often, and when I do, I aim for near certainties. I fine the yield to be better.

On the other hand… when I want partner to switch suits in defence, I use hope.

Not stopping at 14, after all it goes AA according to Excel.
April 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've been working on this list of situations, to test my definition against:

A: Kx opp xx, Qxx opp xxx (and A or K led), or even, LHO has AKxx and you lead towards Qxxx, LHO ducking
B: AJT opp xxx
C: AJT9 opp Qxx, and Axxxx opp QJT9 - both cases starting with Q
D: you finesse Kxxx opposite XXX, ace on your left (not played), but RHO ruffs it.
E: you have AQX opp XX and LHO plays K on first round
F: AJT opp XX. LHO plays K on first round
G: KJX onside, AQT in dummy
H: Axxx QT98 and we run Q first
I: defence taking a finesse for declarer (including declarer being void, and dummy having AQJ)
J: ducking a losing finesse to deny entry to dummy

K: Ruffing finesses

L: choosing which card to ruff with, in case you get overruffed

Andy's definition fails for (L). I have not checked the full list yet.
April 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, I've given up on using “hope” alone as a motivator. I am relying on betting the position of cards, or deduction or something.
April 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David - i think “hope” doesn't come into it. Also, there are many deals where you are certain that a finesse works (am referring to leads from AK promising other, and Q in dummy; honour needed to make point count reach Z for opening bid).
I'll work on an idea and post.
April 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard : “highest held by his side”, doesn't really work with AQT opposite XXX when we finesse twice. When we play to the T, *we* have two higher ones. So might it be that the second sentence needs to be thrown away?

1973 one is a bit better - but not good enough for me. I think it needs “playing towards” to give it some sort of vector (is that the right word?).

As an aside:

if I have Kx in dummy and lead towards my hand, RHO might play the Ace, thinking I have stiff Q.

That conforms to second para of 1973, doesn't it?
April 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
on page 9 Mrs McDougall has a good suggestion about trials.

There is a trial, with anonymity for the players, and markers (eg Reese and Harrison-Gray suggested).

I like the series of 100 board final matches which tests for: “…failing in manners, ethics ur physical endurance. ”

BTW Reese and Gray did not get on … so I wonder how that would have played out.
April 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tomasz: I have a mild dyslexia problem and sometimes (in the heat of the moment) get muddled. I can see myself confusing the J with J … Only when told of the contested claim, one can be prompted of a misremembering.
April 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Roland: if declarer thinks she has 6 clubs, then 6 + 4 + 1 + 1 means no need to duck second spade.
April 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Most *club* players know that AK952 opposite QT7 does not automatically make 5 tricks (and we all know normal play on this hand).

So maybe one of these has taken place:
1. declarer thinks that suit is running regardless
2. declarer thinks that they have more clubs than they do (ie 7-3)… this is unlikely because of the earlier spade play
3. Declarer thinks somebody has discarded clubs or lack of attention/recollection mid game (eg something like know they have 5-3 fit but thought the J was the J and was played already…).

I don't think that the director can determine which of the above (or indeed anything else) has taken place, so it would be overly generous to allow them to notice that the clubs aren't coming in. In other words, even when south shows out in second round of the suit, declarer may still think they have 5 tricks in the suit.
April 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How would Monty Python have deal with the problem? This is how:
Having recognised (after the first set) that Kay “uplifted” the Brock team's score … they should have mandated her to do the same for the other three teams.
Thus, each captain in turn, would nominate a player to bench, and Kay would play for that team, for just one round robin.
You have a wonderfully balanced movement (each team being “Kay-d” once).
End of story.
And probably result in a more amusing thread than this one.

(of course, it would be humiliating for the benched player … but they would have taken the long view and recognised that their team's chances of success had been elevated).
March 29, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top