Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 101 102 103 104
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The usual meaning ascribed to 2 of a minor rebids over a forcing 1NT response, with one twist.

With one partner, we have agreed that a 2 rebid promises 4+ diamonds. And we do not play Flannery. So a 2 rebid is a catchall response with a minimum hand without 6 hearts and without 4 diamonds. It could be as few as 1 club if one holds 4531 with a minimum.

If the 2 rebid does not promise 4 diamonds, then 2 shows 3+ diamonds with fewer clubs (except when 0544) and 2 shows 3+ clubs or 4522 with the inability to make any other call.
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, if I understand your post, you have missed an important point. North's double showed 3 hearts; therefore, South knows that NS have a 9 card heart fit. And, North knows that NS have at least an 8 card heart fit, if not more.
Dec. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is not suspicious at all if 2 is not forcing. I play nonforcing responses to weak 2 bids with one partner. Clearly, this pair plays 2 as nonforcing.
Dec. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have two problems with this appeal:

1. I assume, from the lack of an alert, that the redouble “showed cards.” And I understand the double of 2 showed spades, as the 2 bid was artificial. What can the double of 3 be other than penalties? How can it show cards? That is what the redouble showed. One does not need to show cards again. The double of 3 can only be penalties.

How else could West show a penalty double of 3 other than redouble first and double later? (query - what would a double of 3 mean if West passed on the first round rather than redoubled?)

Assuming that the redouble did not promise a fit, a 3 call makes sense.

2. I object in principal for any poster to go through the appeals process and then come on to BW to complain about it, whatever the merits of the complaint. Once the appeal is over, it is over. If someone other than the parties to the appeal sees an appeals case writeup that they feel is worth discussing, that is fine. But for the parties to come onto BW to complain is just sour grapes.
Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Paul. I prefer the term “intergalactic” to “alien.” Alien is so perjorative.
Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I am not, nor have I ever been, an attorney or any other member of the legal profession.”

David, trust me. It is not that terrible. There are worse things.

For example, you could be my Congressman. He has a particular distinction at the moment which I cannot get into without violating this site's prohibition about discussing politics. But, without naming names, look up stories about the U.S. Congressman from the 2nd District of New Jersey.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Could not agree more.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One may argue that the Laws require a player to claim when there is no doubt as to the number of tricks to which the declarer is entitled.

Law 74B(4) states that “As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from … prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.”

So, while the Laws do not require a player to claim in all cases, if the failure to claim is intentional and is “for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent” the Laws require that a claim be made.

Admittedly, the Laws specifically make this “a matter of courtesy.” But then the Laws talk about “disconcerting an opponent,” which clearly is a discourtesy.

I remember a discussion I had many years ago (39 to be exact) with a frequent partner of mine who was playing in a national team event (in the pre-NABC era). He told me that he specifically did not claim on any hand, no matter how trivial the play was, as it caused the opponents to use their energy to defend and wore them down. At the time, being relatively inexperienced and not knowing the requirements of the Laws, this seemed like a reasonable tactic. Having matured somewhat since then, I now know (without the benefit of the Laws to tell me) that such a tactic is frowned upon as unsportsmanlike.
Dec. 5
Art Korth edited this comment Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In reading the presentation of the “appeal,” it is stated that the following procedure took place:

1. The TD at the table made a preliminary ruling for the purpose of scoring the board and stated that he would consult with the director in charge. I don't know if this even counts as a ruling - it seems to be more of a placeholder.

2. The TD consulted with the director in charge and this consultation resulted in a “Director's Ruling” of down 1. North-South requested a review of the Director's Ruling.

3. A “Reviewer” was addressed by North, the declarer (the presentation states that North was the only player to address the Reviewer), and made an argument. The Reviewer convened a “Panel” which consisted of three persons, one of whom was the Reviewer. It appears that the Panel convened without any presentation from any of the players - the only presentation by a player was by North to the Reviewer. The Panel then issued its final ruling.

Given this procedure, there is nothing that constitutes an “appeal” that we are all familiar with, in which the interested parties get to present their cases to an appeals committee.

How can there be an appeal without merit if there is no “appeal?” (A "review without merit?)

Furthermore, appeals before appeals committees used to be screened and the appellants warned that, in the opinion of the screener, the appeal was without merit, and that by pursing the appeal they could be subject to an AWM warning or penalty. Can you have an AWM warning or penalty if there is no such warning?
Dec. 4
Art Korth edited this comment Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the version of XYZ that I play (which I thought was “standard” but I am finding out otherwise):

a. 1m-1-1NT-2 is natural, game forcing, and distributional. With 4-4 in the majors and invitational values, responder would have bid 2.

b. 1x-1y-1z (where z can be hearts, spades or NT) - 2NT is a puppet to 3, which allows responder to get out in 3 or to make a further bid showing a variety of strong hands. The methods that I play are that 3 of a suit shows a game forcing 4441 hand (shortness in the bid suit, 3y being club shortness) and 3NT being 5332 minimum game force with 5 in the y suit, any doubleton.
Dec. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
EDIT: 1-1-1-1: Natural and forcing one round. There is no need for 4th suit forcing playing XYZ, so that is not a possible explanation.

1-1-1-2: Natural and game forcing. More distributional than bidding 2 (artificial game force) followed by hearts.
Dec. 3
Art Korth edited this comment Dec. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“East (sic) double is reasonable.” That is an understatement. I suspect that 101 out of 100 players would double with the East hand (one of them doubles twice (redouble?)).
Nov. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whoever is in passout seat has a 100% clear action. I just can't tell who it is from the presentation. If it is the 4414 hand, double. If it is the AKxxxx of spades hand, 3.

I blame the hand in passout seat 200%.

EDIT: From later posts it is now clear that the West hand - the hand with the AKxxxx of spades - is in direct seat, and the East hand - the 4414 hand - is in passout seat.

Therefore, I assign 200% of the blame to the hand to East - the hand with the 4414 shape. The West hand - the hand with the AKxxxx of spades - is not good enough for a direct overcall at the 3 level.
Nov. 18
Art Korth edited this comment Nov. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, you seem to be contradicting yourself.

A weak NT player would have no choice but to open 1.

As far as strong NT players go, I am sure that a good portion of them would open 1.
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Except that at most tables South would open 1 and North would bid 5 over West's 5 bid a significant portion of the time. So you are not playing against a field of 5x, you are playing against a field with a significant number of 5 contracts.
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
According to the odds calculator that I found online, the odds of KQ85 on the right is 36% once West follows suit to the club return, giving West only 3 vacant spaces.

Having said that, is it not correct to view the odds of East's spade holdings as:

KQ85 (36%)
KQ5 (12%)
H85 (24%, with H being either the K or the Q).

The fact that the overruff was with the Q doesn't change the odds of H85 on your right.

This may be the restricted choice issue that you refer to. It does change the odds, but not enough to swing them in favor of playing the A on the first round of spades.
Nov. 15
Art Korth edited this comment Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. I did not notice the jump. I would certainly play the cue bid as game forcing.

It seems that playing the cue bid without partner's jump as a rock crusher is not universal, as there is one post below that does not consider the cue bid as game forcing without the jump.
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't double followed by a cue bid the substitute for the old-fashioned powerhouse cue bid that I learned in the old Goren texts (before two-suited cue bids became popular)?
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bidding turned out to be wrong. Partner had AKQJxx of hearts and a small singleton club. Both 3 and 3 got doubled. Bidding turned -50 into -300. I bid 3 at the table.
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No. You win the A in hand, pull all 3 outstanding trump ending in hand and cash 2 diamonds, pitching hearts.
Nov. 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 101 102 103 104
.

Bottom Home Top