Talk:Kaplan–Sheinwold

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Contract bridge, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Contract bridge on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Contract bridgeWikipedia:WikiProject Contract bridgeTemplate:WikiProject Contract bridgeContract bridge articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Norman Kay mislinked

I find that the link to Norman Kay in this article invokes a musician, not the bridge player. I cannot find the proper means of categorizing the Norman Kay link -- for example, when I try to add an item to American_bridge_players, all I find on the edit page is:

Category:Bridge players Bridge

Can someone point me to the Help reference that explains what's going on? Thanks -- Xlmvp 14:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When there is a name ambiguity, an additional qualifier must be added to the article title. If there's one person of that name who is far more notable than the others, he/she gets the title without qualifier (see e.g. Andrew Johnson); otherwise, all should have a qualifier, and the page turned into a "disambiguation" one (see e.g. John Brown). So, in this case, Kay will have an article at Norman Kay (bridge player) one way or another, and we can see what to do with current Norman Kay later. Duja 14:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a survey to Talk:Norman Kay. You're free to vote there. Duja 15:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responder's GF rebid

I meant a short version of this to be in my edit summary but I hit Enter prematurely. I have inserted a ^{[citation needed]} template following the claim that K-S would treat responder's rebid in 1C - 1D - 1H - 1S as game forcing, five diamonds and four spades. This sounds more like adherence to Walsh than K-S (I remember during the 1980s there was a Walsh player in the Boulder Country Club game). No question that in K-S, as in Walsh, responder happily bypasses a good five card diamond suit to bid even a poor four card major, and no question that 1S in the given sequence is forcing. But "game forcing" is too much in K-S, I think, and I ask the contributor to supply a citation. (I cannot find support in the original K-S, nor in the paperback, nor in the K-S Updated monograph.) TurnerHodges (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, six months is long enough to wait for the contributor to supply a citation. I'm removing the "game forcing, long diamonds, four spades" claim, clarifying the meaning of the sample sequence, and supplying a link to TBW's KS update page. TurnerHodges (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]