Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ai-Tai Lo
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 28 29 30 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The opening lead was 7 according to the record on the EBL site.
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sabine,

I am 100% sure the intent of your OP is questioning the lack of response/action by the Chief TD and not insinuating any unethical behavior by the declarer, but the following sentence: “If we want to rid the game of cheating and unethical behavior, we all must work together: administrators, players, and tournament directors.” probably does’t sit well with some people especially the declarer. In my opinion, the score should be adjusted to -50 (not weighted) if the defense can beat the contract given the full information and maybe the offending side should be penalized some PP for lack of full disclosure, but as Chief TD told you, It is impossible to determine the intent of the declarer, so I am not sure what else can be done other than filing a recorder on this particular instance (not sure if EBL has one like ACBL).
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
——–K95
——–J76
——–Q10654
——–95

10643———-AJ2
K98532——–void
void————AKJ3
1072————KQJ863

——–Q87
——–AQ104
——–9872
——–A4

I don't think the tab key works here.
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sabine posted on FB that she thinks 16 board per match is too short. Each team will only play 48 boards a day. 20 boards per match is probably too many so perhaps 18 board per match is optimum which will be 54 boards a day. You will still have plenty of time to have a relaxing long dinner.
June 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg, I agree with you that North should not ask if 4 specifically shows a void but just a simple question to make sure 4 was a splinter since East didn't alert it. My main point is North would have a much better case if he had asked before he doubled in my opinion. If North had asked and East just said it was a splinter, I would have changed the result to 7 doubled down 3.

Ed, I agree OS should not get any benefit of the doubt (that's why I said EW should not appeal if the result is changed to 7 doubled down 3), but NOS shouldn't ALWAYS get benefit of the doubt. I happen to think NS shouldn't in this case. You are the director. What would you have ruled?
June 3
Ai-Tai Lo edited this comment June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, I agree with you that South would probably save if North had passed. But I would not give benefit of the doubt to someone who makes a terrible double without even making sure what 4 means and his partner (assuming their skill level are about the same) so I would not change the result to 7 doubled down 3. But I am NOT the director. Having said that, if the director rules that the result should be 7 doubled down 3, I would not appeal as EW since E did commit a serious infraction. I just have MY doubts that North should benefit from this infraction in this auction. I don’t think the OP ever told us what the director’s ruling was and I am curious to know. BTW, if your LHO opens 1NT and your RHO bids 2D without alerting it as a transfer to hearts behind screens, wouldn’t you ask RHO to make sure that he just forgot to alert if you intend to bid?
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I said “should” which I believe it means it is advisable to do so for his own protection. If he had done so, he would not have been in this situation even after East committed an infraction. A simple question like, “Was 4 a splinter? You didn't alert it.” would get a specific answer from East that 4 shows a void. Judging from the posts on this thread, many posters seem to think he is just trying to get something for nothing (my thinking also). In many instances, a simple question would avoid an awkward situation like this. I strongly prefer all results be settled at the table, not at the court. The simplest way to achieve this is to always ask questions when in doubt.
June 3
Ai-Tai Lo edited this comment June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If North decides to double which is terrible anyway IMO, he should definitely consider the fact that East could have a void (I don’t think anyone would think 4 has any other meaning). North should protect himself by asking East this question. I might roll the result back to 6 undoubed, but never to 7 doubled down 3. I don’t believe a player who makes a terrible double without even asking a simple question to protect himself and his partner are capable of saving in 7.
June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would let the result stand and assess EW 3-IMP PP. North should definitely ask East if 4 could be specifically void (or singleton) before he doubles (even after East failed to alert). Double is terrible even if 4 doesn't specifically show a void IMO; why can't East have either A or a void? (7 makes if East has both.) Double is right only if West has A and East has a singleton . Two to one that 6 can make. Plus the save rates to be less than the opponents' vulnerable game. Seems to me calling the director and asking for score adjustment is trying to win at the court when you can't beat opponents at the table.
June 3
Ai-Tai Lo edited this comment June 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In an ideal relay system, both sides can decide if they wish to relay or just bid naturally. You usually relay if you have a balanced hand and have controls in the side suits (thus have no need for showing shortness/cue-bidding) and bid naturally if you have an unbalanced hand and/or lack control in a side suit (thus have a need to splinter/cue-bid). You can also break the relay and relinquish captaincy once you can no longer take control of the auction. This is a tough hand to bid: Meckstroth doesn’t know Rodewell is void in diamonds when he bids exclusion KC in clubs. He knows they have all the keycards outside of clubs and the trump Q so it is definitely reasonable to bid 7 if Rodwell has one or two diamonds as Hampson pointed out especially given the state of the match.
May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think Bart's main point is that drawing two rounds of trumps and hoping for QJx in diamonds or a ruffing finesse against North (as some suggested) is definitely inferior to Jeff's line. Since the percentages of all options are extremely low, the discussions in this thread are purely academic.
May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually there is another line of play after South followed with Q9 in diamonds: Play North for J108 in spades and Jxxxx in diamonds (South has a singleton spade and Q9 of diamonds). Take the ruffing finesse for two more diamond tricks and one ruff in clubs.
May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bart, I agree with your analysis completely. But once South followed with Q9 in the first two diamond tricks, restricted choice (plus South might have false-carded with QJ9x as you suggested) seems to suggest he should cross ruff in hearts and clubs and hope for either (2) or (3). Ruffing the third only works if South has QJ9 and trumps are 2-2. However, I am not sure the percentage of (2) and (3) combined is higher than that of (1).
May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congrats! Their closest match was the 25-imp win against Lilianstein’s team in the round of 32. This is obviously Marty’s best team after adding Hampson and Greco.
March 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For 1,250 euros per team (312.50 euros per person for a 4-person team), everyone is guaranteed to play 7 days of bridge: If you don't qualify for the KO, you get to play in the BAM, if you don't qualify to the BAM final A, you get to play in the final B and if you lose in the KO, you can drop into the BAM. That works out be a little less than 45 euros a day to play against top competitions. Definitely a great deal especially for European players.
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jan, I just checked the schedule. There are only two days of Swiss qualifying in the Rosenblum. I guess WBF think most of the teams will have sponsors so they can jack up the entry fee.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Firstly, I don't think they were getting paid. I will be grateful for any advice/tip that is free. Secondly, although only five hands were analyzed, The analyses are extremely long and detailed.
Feb. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are right, Ed. Not at any time.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Now you will be at least suspended for such behavior. I would be ashamed if I behaved like such a bully. And you actually post this in public and seem to think your behavior is OK? What law states you must play a card that your partner hasn't seen yet? Who gives you the right to physically interact with your opponent? Your opponent must have been an inexperienced player intimidated by your action. If I were in charge of ACBL, I would kick you out of the league right now. There is no place for your behavior when we are trying so hard to attract young players to the game.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can kind of see your point: You thought it is possible that North meant his 2 bid as a limit raise based on his hand evaluation. After his partner competed to 3 based on him having only a 4-card mixed raise per his partner's explanation, he decided to raise to 4. You also thought maybe he didn't want to admit he took advantage of partner's explanation which is UI when asked.

In this situation, I usually look at their convention cards to see if there is an agreement. If there is a correct agreement, everything is hunky-dory. If there isn't one, then I will point it to them. Frankly, in club games, I wouldn't bother calling the director, but at the nationals, I would ask them to produce their notes if there is no written agreement on their convention cards. I will then call the director if they can't produce any documents showing their agreement.

I also try very hard to fill out my convention card as detailed as possible. When the opponent asks for an explanation of my partner's bid, I can just point out our agreement on the card without any verbal explanation to avoid potential UI. It is hard to do it consistently, but I try. If we are not in a rush, I think we should practice writing down our explanation if it is very short. How hard can it be to write down “LR” or “4+ mixed”?
Jan. 18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 28 29 30 31
.

Bottom Home Top