Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Adam Portley
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Phillip, would you call the director in such a case and attempt to get an adjustment using that argument?
Oct. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“My partners know better than to play me for high card strength.”

In your style, what does a minimum 4144 takeout double look like? And if it's much lighter than “down-the-middle”, don't you have problems with constructive bidding or mistaken penalty doubles (or missing the opportunity for a good penalty double) later in the auction?
Oct. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Philip: “Whatever flaw prevented you from doubling the first time is not only still present, it is now a more serious flaw.”

This is not completely true, is it? Both opp. hands are now limited. Both hands are less likely to hold spades. Partner is less likely to play you for high card strength and make a mistake later in the auction or in defense. All of these are flaws which might prevent a light takeout double and which are no longer present.
Oct. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael R:
“Chip called the director. That's all he did. It's up to the Director and Committee to make a ruling. They did.”

A hypothetical question for you (completely separate from the incident described in the OP - I have no opinion about whether this scenario applies to the OP):
Let's say you, as a very respected and experienced player, call the director and state your case and it results in an adjustment which you find to be clearly ridiculous. Do you bear some ethical responsibility for the damage which occurred and should you help to rectify it?
Sept. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“If you duck and are right, you will probably be able to dispose of you losing spades. In addition, it is possible that West has 4 trumps. Even if he has KQ10x you might still be able to succeed with a trump end-play..”

Not if you're going to play ace and a heart.

Also, it looks pretty likely that we'll be able to pick up the spades. West appears to have Q based on his shift and also on east's lowest diamond to trick 2. We might be able to ruff the fourth round or get a count on the hand later.
July 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, interesting - I'm clueless about ogust followups. I thought the 2NT bidder picks the contract and everything is non-forcing but I might be completely wrong about that.

I assume 2S/3S would be invitational, but I thought it might cause opener to be overly concerned about trump support and overly optimistic about the AK of hearts.

Yuan, no worries.. Partner upgraded her hand to “good” because of the spade void.
June 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I tried ogust intending to sign off opposite any response except “good hand bad suit”. Completely insane?
June 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Abstain.. but I would vote for 1H if I could.
June 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would you take 4NT as natural/sign-off or keycard? I can easily construct hands where 4NT is gin and 4 either makes the same number of tricks or goes down on a diamond ruff.
Jan. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems like 3 should suggest more strength opposite a passed hand because we had the option of passing 1 - so partner is more likely to be able to bid game with a fitting diamond honor. It might be interesting to try the same problem with an unpassed partner.
Jan. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“But how is one to determine what is gambling?”

Can't a director determine what is gambling the same way s/he would determine what is a logical alternative (polling of peers)?

In the OP for example, if I understand correctly, the main question is whether to consider the play in 3 when adjudicating after rolling back to 2. Couldn't the director conduct a poll and find out if anyone bids or considers bidding 3 absent info about the hesitation? If no one does then the director could conclude that the bid was gambling, that it was based largely on the assumption that the contract would be rolled back if doubled or whatever, that it was a distortion of the hand which could have caused defensive errors, and therefore that the play in 3 should be disregarded.
Dec. 16, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems less clear than Frances says. I think OP is saying that he has no idea in a vacuum what “first-time.. far from a top player.. often tanks” partner's tank would suggest, but based on his heart void he suspects it suggests a hand which was close to doubling.

Is OP required to use his hand to guess at the meaning of partner's tank?

It is reasonable to suspect that any action other than pass has a good chance of being ruled against if it works. Is OP allowed to consider the chance of an adverse ruling and pass as a result? If not, he is constrained to take a no-win action. But if so, his partner can “enforce” a pass by tanking.
Nov. 17, 2014
Adam Portley edited this comment Nov. 17, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I count two passed hands but one of them is partner.
Sept. 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With you up until (b). 9 from a weak player and standard carding looks more likely to be from a 3-card suit than a 5-card suit, so I would cash the diamonds and play for a black-suit squeeze against west.

Also worth noting is east's discard on the third spade. If he pitches a club then we're cold.

edit: upside-down diagrams get me every time. North is declarer! Changed “xHO” to east/west for clarity.
July 11, 2014
Adam Portley edited this comment July 11, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Under the circumstances (weak partner, strong-2 system, terrible hand) responder's pass looks very reasonable. I don't know what 3 is supposed to show in this auction - 2 was artificial and opener can't have a one-suited diamond hand, right? - but I am sure that the beginner who bid it doesn't have his bid. I would 100% pass here and I don't think it's remotely close. Heck, even if partner HAS his bid it might be right to pass.

Obviously this doesn't address the original question of whether there is redress available for the misbid, just that all the comments above questioning the ethics of LHO are way off (IMO).
July 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Larry,
Thanks for being in the Well today! The discussion about conventions brought to mind a similar question about defensive signalling. Is this an area, like conventions, where simpler is better? Or is it more important to have detailed agreements here? (things like whether the first-trick signal should switch to suit-preference if dummy looks a certain way, whether attitude signals should have “obvious shift” implications, etc)
What was your signalling style in your regular partnerships - did you tend to signal suit preference in the trump suit, count in declarer's suits etc by default, or did you tend not to signal unless you were pretty sure that partner would need to know?
Thanks again,
–Adam
June 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Probably Hampson played LHO for Q because he doubled 7.
May 20, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also: 14+-17NT, one-way drury
May 15, 2014
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would rebid 3 on the second round and then bid 3 on the third round.
April 24, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe someone can work out the actual probabilities but to me it “feels” like 4=2=3=4 is a likely shape for partner when compared with 4=2=2=5, 3=2=2=6, and 4=1=3=5 - maybe as likely as all of them combined? Given that partner might not make a support double with 4=3=3=3 or 3=3=3=4 it looks like it's better to pass.
Sept. 13, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top