Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Andy Bowles
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 103 104 105 106
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Any bid below 7
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because they're wrong?
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The theory is that high-level alerts on the second and subsequent rounds of bidding tend to be more useful for the alerting side than their opponents.”

Whenever I read a sentence like this, I wonder if I live on the same planet as the writer (or, in this case, the author of the theory).

To benefit from an opponent's alert, only one thing must be true:
- You would take a different action over the alerted meaning than over the non-alerted meaning.

To benefit from your partner's alert, all of these must be true:
- You weren't expecting the alert.
- You're dishonest. An honest player is disadvantaged by an unexpected alert, because he is constrained by the resulting UI.
- Your hand is consistent with the artificial meaning, even though you intended the bid as natural. If your hand doesn't match the alerted meaning, you're just as constrained as an honest player.
- You can actually benefit from using the UI.

If our rulemakers think that alerts tend to be useful to the alerting side, they must think that an awfully high proportion of players are dishonest.
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, have you read Law 66B?

Until his side has led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may inspect, but not expose, his own last card played.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, of course it is. What does that have to do with the situation Bruce described?
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Then not knowing your methods is a failure to follow correct procedure, which is by definition an irregularity, so John is right.

Ed, you seem to be discussing whether not knowing your methods is an infraction. I don;t think anyone has suggested that it is.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm surprised that you needed a director to tell you to alert this. Don't you want your opponents to know what your bids mean?
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have unimaginatively doubled 2, showing a takeout double of diamonds.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The relevant question is, of course, “Which law states that knowing your conventions is part of correct procedure?”
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Which law defines an irregularity as a breach of law?
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Something like a 4144 11-count or a 4243 13-count without heart wastage. That is, what used to be a minimum takeout double, but is half a trick better than the cack that people double on these days.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It I were writing the laws I would word all of them differently.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“But do you think he will admit it when West asks him whether he meant to bid 4?”

Yes.
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
from another planet.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I dislike being described as “being of a certain age”. It's nearly as annoying as the time that someone offered me a seat on the Tube.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Looks easy enough. Win the queen, knock out K (overtaking if necessary), win the forced spade return, and cash some diamonds to squeeze West.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, perhaps I should have added an emoticon to my post.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd explain that North should have bid 5NT, over which South would have bid 6, then use the remainder of the time to discuss the play in 6.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You could tell the director what you saw but not which table it was at, and ask him if you should tell him the rest of the details.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
All three versions seem equally bad to me.
April 18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 103 104 105 106
.

Bottom Home Top