Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 63 64 65 66
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here is a link to the District 4 GNT Conditions of Contest:

http://www.district4.info/gnt.htm

Note the following:

UNEXPECTED CIRCUMSTANCES

In the event that these District 4 Conditions of Contest and the ACBL GNT Conditions of Contest do not provide a remedy to an incident that requires a timely solution, The District 4 Director, or, in that person's absence, the District 4 President, or in both of their absence the District 4 GNT Coordinator, shall make a timely and just determination and ruling with the consultation of district officials, tournament directors, and others as such person may deem necessary.

Note also that these CoC appear to have been updated recently, as the references in the CoC are to next year's event. As far as I know, these CoC were in effect for the 2018 event recently contested.
8 hours ago
Art Korth edited this comment 8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I have stated above, my agreement has always been that if responder to RKCB has an ambiguous number of key cards, he is expected to bid more with the higher number.

The discussion in this thread has caused me to rethink this agreement. There are times when responder is forced to bid RKCB even with zero key cards. To require his partner to bid again over a sign off holding 3 key cards is obviously not optimal.

So, I will have to come up with a new agreement to deal with situations in which the partner of the RKCB bidder has shown a very strong hand.

By the way, and this has nothing to do with the question asked in the OP, it is my recollection that Kantar suggests using 03/14 responses when the strong hand is the responding hand. Can anyone confirm this?
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The question is improper regardless of when it was asked, assuming that LHO was going to bid 3NT regardless of the answer to the question.

The question is being asked solely for the benefit of partner.

While the question is legally permissible at LHO's turn to bid, the fact that the answer is irrelevant to LHO makes it an improper question.

Mike - the novice player may not know to ask, but they have to learn sometime.
April 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Raise to 5?
April 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On this auction, South has never shown any extra values and North is a passed hand. Therefore, there is no force.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The practical problem with your solution, John, is that the result would be that 3, 4 or 5 teams would be eliminated in the first qualifying session of the first day of a 2-day event. So those eliminated teams would travel a considerable distance to play 1/2 day of bridge. At one time, this was not deemed to be a problem. But it is today.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gary, in a perfect (bridge) world the NABC events would be run by the best of the best and there would never be any technical problems with the movements. We all know how well that works.

As a practical matter, it should not make any difference whether this is an NABC event or a regional or sectional event. The problem is the same and the solution should be something reasonable and readily attainable.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why is the weak hand doing the asking?
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, Gary, it is true that Meyer presented the situation as occurring in a somewhat less consequential setting. But the problem is the same. And it is true that the experimental event is coming up at one of our regionals soon (extremely soon - as in next Monday).

Should the solution be different if it occurs in qualifying session 1 of 2 in the GNT or in qualifying session 1 of 2 in a regional KO event?
April 24
Art Korth edited this comment April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Doesn't everyone?
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is what I do in real life - whenever I disagree with the options presented, I bid 7.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The point is that if you can't handle one of the responses to RKCB, then you can't bid it. That was always the rule for bidding regular Blackwood in the pre-RKCB days, and it still applies.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There were less than 8 teams - an odd number of teams. They did play 1/2 match against all of the other teams in the first session. However, because of the movement screw-up, team 1 NS played boards 1-4 against Team 2 EW, and team 1 EW played boards 5-8 against Team 2 NS. Team 1 NS played boards 5-8 against a different team's EW pair, and Team 1 EW played boards 1-4 against a different team's NS pair. There were no (or few) direct comparisons. Everyone played all of the boards, but not against the correct opponents.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Probably meant round-robin. More and more frequently we have events advertised as Swiss Teams but the turnout is so small that a round-robin is used. With 5 or 7 teams, that usually results in a BAM movement.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have always played that the responder MUST continue if he has the higher number of keycards after an ambiguous response. That is the way the convention was written. But I have heard very good players argue that when the responder has already shown a very good hand, the higher number of key cards should be assumed.

I think that the better agreement is that the RKCB bidder should ALWAYS assume that responder has the lower number of key cards shown by an ambiguous response and act accordingly, with the understanding that responder will bid again with the higher number. If the higher number is not sufficient for slam, the RKCB bidder should not have used RKCB.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I just read this thread. The answer is yes. All the rest was surplussage.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Somehow not leading from Axx seems wrong to me.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So you are saying that he would not double with KQxxx?
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry - don't want to hijack the thread, but since 2 posters mentioned this, I want to interject a question.

Double of a transfer bid when the opponents are playing a weak NT - two posters say this shows a good hand and does not relate to the transfer suit. I find this to be an odd agreement (while I agree that a double of Stayman over a weak NT would show a good hand saying nothing about clubs). In the case of the transfer bid, 2 of the opponents' real suit is available for takeout. Why make the double of the transfer bid show a good hand? Is it just for safety?
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or that nearly archaic term “one-over-one approach forcing.”

Or is that now a form of sexual harassment?
April 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 63 64 65 66
.

Bottom Home Top