Join Bridge Winners

Bridge Winners Profile for David Parsons

David Parsons
David Parsons
  • 2
  • 4
  • 363
  • 0

Basic Information

Member Since
Nov. 6, 2015
Last Seen
6 hours ago
Member Type
Bridge Player
about me

Actuary, Ranked Chess and Othello Master, now retired and studying Bridge.

Bridge Information

Bridge Accomplishments
Recently, 42/364 in Silodor Open Pairs at the Spring NABC.
Regular Bridge Partners
Paul Frean, David Libchaber, Irving Gewirtzman, David Carter
Member of Bridge Club(s)
Honors in NYC
Favorite Conventions
Not a convention, but I love New Losing Trick Count (NLTC) for hand evaluation.
BBO Username
ACBL Ranking
Silver Life Master
Parsons Libchaber
Two over One (Larry Cohen's Style)
Copy to my cards View/Print
David Parsons's lead problem: T86 T932 Q432 J4
Kudos to those that lead the 2, for the exact reason that Paul gave. I made the mistake of leading the T, and partner couldn't know whether I had four hearts or two hearts, which was crucial for him.
David Parsons's lead problem: AK94 87 Q985 J93
Yep...the lead of the top spade was a winner. The dummy has JT2. Turns out that partner gives you a high card for attitude, you play low to his Q (practically the only honor in his hand), he returns a spade. Declarer bid 3NT with no spade stopper, and ...
David Parsons's bidding problem: 65 QJ9 A94 AK965
On the actual hand, 3 makes exactly, and 4 goes down one exactly. So, the MP winner is bidding 4 on this particular hand.
David Parsons's bidding problem: --- AQT532 8754 A63
Oh, and only one opener out of 13 bid 5 for a top. We played it in 4 doubled.
David Parsons's bidding problem: --- AQT532 8754 A63
Three out of four of the 4 contracts were doubled in a National Open pairs event (top flight players). Partner of opener expected 12 HCPs from opener, and if opener had 12 HCPs, the double would be sound (based on Mel's Rule of Nine). The difference between 4 ...
David Parsons's bidding problem: --- AQT532 8754 A63
Here was the actual hand, from the Silodor Open Pairs at the Spring NABC event. 4 bidder had: KJT98542 J7 K 74 Partner of the hand in the OP had: Q73 K86 QJ3 Q852 With double dummy play, the hand makes ...
David Parsons's bidding problem: --- AQT532 8754 A63
Yes, I totally agree...our constructive raise is based entirely on losing tricks, but many like to express that in terms of points. This hand is one that would bid 4 opposite a constructive raise, and indeed 4 would have made on this hand. I'll run another ...
David Parsons's bidding problem: T93 AJT43 2 AT85
Yep, 4 was the bid, which would have put us in the cold spade slam. But, robot partner bid 7 in this exact auction with this exact us an absolute zero (we're missing the K) and ruining the tournament. These BridgeBase robots are so frustrating ...
David Parsons's bidding problem: Q2 KT QT8763 T43
Yes, as I said many comments ago, it's possible that Henry's comment about partner opening with an 11HCP 4=4=1=4 hand (which our partnership would not do) was the reason for the vote. Henry's comment was constructive to the discussion.
David Parsons's bidding problem: A9843 AT432 T9 2
Right you are, Paul! I was looking only at the (1) P (1NT) 2 bid. Interestingly, though, the ACBL pamphlet on alertable bids says that in the above auction 2 is not alertable if it is *either* natural or a two-suited bid. So, it seems like 2 ...

Bottom Home Top