Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Larkin
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 47 48 49 50
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RY has point. Circumstanial evidence is not per se a derogatory term.
15 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interestingly, if you take the disparaged approach to dealing with UI, i.e. Try to make the call you would have made without it, then you do not have your problem with the secondary reflected UI.
So your stance (arguably correct) on the first produces the second.
17 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
MS: It does seem a bit of a shame that having an ethical partner and knowing he/she is ethical has resulted in your having “UI”.
19 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good question. Don't really know. Support to p's suit is a “step-up”, but no specific outline for other suits. I just decided I had to “get in the road”, not advertise my weakness, and give partner another suit option …. seemed natural….and only later
19 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As in “Football Association”.
19 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BH: I did the first one last night; 1d (X) 1s. with 98xxx T9x x Jxxx … thinking very little of it.
But afterwards wondered if this was a psyche.
July 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Psyching with one partner sounds dubious…
July 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“… computer run of results from the month preceding the event…”
July 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
LQAI
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
…and?…
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Spooky.
Now realise that in Americaland (or bits of), I posted this around that time….but that wasn't the point (and would be weird if it was precisely then)
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3.35.
Approx.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks all.
Did indeed intend to add-on.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Suddenly I feel so foreign.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
18-19 must feel left out.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But you yourself are more a 3SDs than a 2SDs?…. for “comfort” (the first comment mentioned Pharma trials…. and I am never comfortable with a p<0.05)
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So declarer can insist that one of these exposed cards (and which one) is to be led?

Edited/addition. Indeed does insist. I assume therefore he cannot insist on a different lead?
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Besides… Trouble is his middle name…..
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is probably a difference between your being clearly convinced and the evidence being clear and convincing.
MAR: didn't quite understand your description of the rather large range.
July 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Now that's what I call precision.
July 17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 47 48 49 50
.

Bottom Home Top