Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Kopera
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 469 470 471 472
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought that (at least in general) negative inferences were not alertable.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Idee fixe, mindlock – happens all the time, very hard to recover from (for me, at least).
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“so you get information from opposition and you see on the card it disagrees with his explanation…”

1. It was stated just above that there was no convention card at the table.

2. Having been given information, why would one check the convention card anyway?
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So at matchpoints, it is takeout?
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I call it common courtesy…”

That could suggest that to not do so is discourteous…
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, you can agree that it should have been adjusted…
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Were E-W appealing just to get N-S's score adjusted or did they somehow think they were entitled to the result standing?
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“That the CC may say ‘majors’ seems rather irrelevant if my screenmate tells me ‘clubs and a higher.’”

The relevance is that that explanation is misinformation.
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Two more (making 4 instead of 2), the lead was from J75…
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That would give South 4

How would it gain even then?
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So a double of 1 that could be 2 (if balanced outside 1NT range) is lead-directing?
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another poll? My guess would be undiscussed, falling back to some default agreement…
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Announceable” doesn't have to be one of the two different answers…
April 21
Michael Kopera edited this comment April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Could you provide an example of a hand that would make a takeout double of 1♦ then want to bid a natural nonforcing 2NT?”

Others have already done so…
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So 3 would be “logically” forcing as well?
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Logically 2NT is forcing.”

Neither forcing nor non-forcing is illogical…
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm picturing John Belushi skulking furtively in “Animal House”…
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can certainly remember the last time I missed one…ouch.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What did the other table do?
April 19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 469 470 471 472
.

Bottom Home Top