Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Andy Bowles
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 117 118 119 120
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the same way, the problem of how to play AQJ opposite xxx is “insoluble” because the correct play leads to going down when there is a singleton king offside.
an hour ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Marshall's rejection of prescriptivism. However, I think that in this case our way is better than your way.

We have these definitions:
Signal: What you do when you follow suit
Discard: What you do when you don't follow suit
Carding: Either of the above.

As I understand it, you have two words for the last one, and none for the first one.
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“ruffing two hearts/spade to T”

Are you planning to do it in that order? If so, that seems to risk going down against either QJxx and three clubs in the West hand (if you draw trumps), or a hand like x Kxxxx xxxx xxx (if you don't). It's probably best to just ruff one heart whilst drawing trumps.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Leslie, you didn't commit a foul. Bridge is a thinking game. If you find yourself with a bridge problem, you are entitled to think about it. If you find yourself with a bridge problem that you could have been prepared for, but weren't, you're still allowed to think about it. There is no legal or moral obligation to solve all possible bridge problems in advance in order to avoid breaking tempo.

What matters is that when you give unauthorised information by thinking, your partner should obey the rules. That is, when he has a choice of actions and your hesitation tells him which action is right, he chooses the one that is wrong.

If your partner obeyed the rules, the opponents had no reason to complain. If they thought your partner had not obeyed the rules, their only acceptable action was to call the director.

Saying something at the the table which implies that the opponents have done something unethical is just obnoxious (and illegal).
Aug. 18
Andy Bowles edited this comment 23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Odd-even isn't binary if you agree that playing high-low with two cards of the same parity cancels the message. Then your cards are ranked
2-4-6-8-10-Q-A-K-J-9-7-5-3
Aug. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On a good day it might be “Director please”.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If anyone said to me “Do that again and I will call the director” (or any words to that effect), they'd get a fairly short answer.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Having more boards per day benefits a team that has three strong pairs, because they can rotate their pairs without weakening their lineup. Having fewer boards per day makes the less homogeneous teams more competitive, because they can play their stronger pairs in more matches without tiring them.

Hence more boards per day, within reason, is a better way to determine a winner, but fewer boards may make the event more interesting to watch.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, when it's your turn to pick, just write down the opponent's names on four pieces of paper and draw one at random. Do it publicly, so that the opponents know that you're doing it.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They were entitled to know that it showed 15-18 balanced. In addition, they were entitled to see the convention card, which presumably had something under the heading “Defence to Strong 1C”. They weren't allowed to know that the overcaller had assumed that 1 was strong.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it's just a heart cue-bid, allowing space for more discussion of red-suit controls.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“If the policy in the White Book is contrary to Law 75 (which it is not) then the policy is nugatory.”

If that was a reference to something I said, I didn't suggest that there was any inconsistency between the policy in the White Book and the Laws.

It seems to me that:
- The policy in the White Book and the Laws are in agreement.
- What you originally said was in agreement with neither.
- What you are now saying is in agreement with both.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, if East thinks that the bid shows X, and West thinks that the bid shows Y, then we should, indeed, rule as though NS had been told that the bid was two-way or ambiguous.

But that's not what you said. You said that this approach applies in the EBU "in all cases where a player has X but his partner says that the player has Y". (My emphasis)

That means that we would assume a two-way agreement whenever a player psychs, miscounts his points, suffers a momentary aberration, forgets who his partner is, or fails to correct a mechanical error in time. We would assume a two-way agreement even if both players had convention cards written in their own blood, saying that the agreement was Y, and on the preceding ten boards East had made the same bid when holding Y.

In fact, I don't believe that this policy is applied in the EBU in the way that you say it is. If the EBU L&EC want EBU directors to rule in this way, they have to tell the directors about the policy. The medium for such communication is the EBU White Book. If it's not in the White Book, it's not EBU policy.
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
WB 1.4.5.2 is under the heading “Ruling on a Fielded Misbid”. It applies when a misbid has been fielded. It does not apply to the general case “where a player has X but his partner says that the player has Y”.
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
in all cases where a player has X but his partner says that the player has Y, the agreement is “either X or Y”.

it has been used in England to good effect ever since we thought of it


David, can you point to either:
- An EBU regulation which says that this approach should be used, or
- An actual ruling where a pair was assumed to have this type of two-way agreement, where the agreement Y was documented, and there was no evidence of an understanding to play X, other than the bid of X.
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“… looking at nine hearts, no one actually believes South was thinking of 5H.”

With the actual South hand, I would think about bidding 5.
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I didn't suggest that the Laws were sensible or consistent. But when a law says explicitly that three of the four players are allowed to do something, the only reasonable interpretation is that the fourth is not.

Anyway, if dummy is unsure who won a trick, he is free to ask the other players.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Dummy is entitled to follow the play, so if he hasn't seen a card that was played, and hasn't turned his own card, I believe he's entitled to ask to see the trick.”

Law 66A grants that right to declarer and the defenders only. By inference, dummy doesn't have that right.

So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We weren't trying to identify “standard”. We were asked what we prefer to play.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that information is relevant, given that we can't conduct a poll. It would be better to know the auctions at the tables that played 4, and the strengths of the players at those tables.
Aug. 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 117 118 119 120
.

Bottom Home Top