Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I approached answering this problem from a different perspective. I didn't think anyone did anything wrong. But the problem asked who was to blame? Blame for what? Not finding the heart fit. If one is answering that question, then it is clearly East who is to “blame” for not bidding his heart suit.
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, the ACBL does require that the system that you are playing is disclosed on your convention card. I was once given a 1 VP procedural penalty because my partner and I had recently changed one of our agreements but the change was not reflected on our convention cards.
April 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apparently your direct seat doubles over bid and raise are very aggressive.
April 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bob: If you have values why did you pass over 2 on the previous round?
April 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Using traditional Jacoby 2NT, 4 over 2NT would show a good second suit. And that is what the OP states.
April 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He also knows that partner lacks the Club Ace.
April 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have to agree with Petter.

First, I like the 2NT bid. In my opinion, North has a hand that needs to take control. There may be a slam even if opener doesn't want to cooperate opposite a splinter raise.

Second, the main culprit in this auction is the 4 bid. One cannot bypass a first round club control even if there will be ambiguity whether it is a singleton ace or a void. If the methods of the partnership are to bid first round controls first, it is mandatory that South bid 4.
April 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If partner's values are in his long suits, then we may take 9 or 10 tricks playing in a black suit while we are off the A, K and Q of both red suits (or worse).

I would pass 1 and hope that is the best spot. Clubs could be better, but there is no way of knowing.

Passing risks allowing the opps back into the auction, but I do not want to suggest to partner that we have a game.
April 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are 17 HCP missing and South opened a 15-17 1NT. It seems that South should have the AK of diamonds, so the lead of the K seems odd. If the diamond honors are split, South has only 14 HCP and must have the Q. Even if South has chosen to lead the K while holding the AK of diamonds, he is still a big favorite to hold the Q.

Finally, if North does hold the Q, the hearts might not be 3-3 (or Q doubleton). So you might as well play for the Q onside.

Query: If you choose to play hearts from the top, what do you do on the third round of the suit if South plays the 9 and 10 on the first two rounds of the suit?
April 4
Art Korth edited this comment April 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With spades 2-2 and heart finesse on, 12 tricks are always there.
April 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another way of looking at this is to try to construct a hand for partner that has no action in direct seat and your side belongs in the auction. About the only reasonable construction would be a very strong hand with long clubs unsuitable for a NT overall. Partner would have to be strong enough so that your side can make a game. It is a possibility, but not a very likely one given your flat hand.

Even then, your best spot might still be defending 1.
April 3
Art Korth edited this comment April 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“A big shout out to the Memphis Tournament Committee and all the Volunteers who made the tournament fun to play. I found the venue pleasant and well lit. Unfortunate for some late night construction noise but that was minor. (Someone needs to provide feedback to the convention center about the blue folding chairs and their propensity to collapse when older folks tried to scoot them back on the rug. I saw 6 people fall backward, several hitting their head on the floor. Not good). I enjoyed a brunch at the Sheraton before the Board of Governor's Meeting. The Hotel was welcoming.”

So, except for a few life-threatening injuries caused by the folding chairs, the tournament site was excellent?
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are there formal Appeals Committees anymore? If appeals are handled by TDs, then I can understand why there are no reports.
April 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There seems to be an opinion shared by many that winning based on an appeal is somehow wrong.

Suppose something happens at the table that is totally wrong? Are you supposed to just accept it and move on? Or do you attempt to have the rules enforced and equity restored?

I am not commenting about the merit of any particular case. It just seems that everyone is rushing to judgment that it is somehow unsavory to win in an appeals committee.

It is up to the appeals committee to make sure that the result is appropriate under the circumstances. If the court of public opinion decides that the committee somehow messed up, their complaint is with the committee, not with the players.
March 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would transfer if I were playing a weak NT (in which case I would not be vulnerable). This is essentially a preempt.

Playing a strong NT I just pass.
March 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Similar - bidding to 6 off a cashing ace and with a trump suit of QJTxxxx facing A. The singleton K was on my left and the slam rolled home.

And it didn't matter a bit! This was BAM, and my teammates were +110 at the other table!
March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Quite a high scoring first quarter in the Krekorian-McAllister match. McAllister 1154 - Krekorian 1143. Must be some pretty significant swings.

EDIT: It's been fixed to a much more pedestrian 15-14.
March 26
Art Korth edited this comment March 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I made it extreme to accomplish a purpose - that no one who has won an open NABC championship event should be permitted to play in a limited event and should be required to play in the top bracket in a bracketed event. 40,000 was arbitrary (it could have been 500,000).

That is the purpose of the rule. I just phrased it in different terms.

(By “open” I mean not restricted on the top side. Strictly speaking events such as the Platinum Pairs or the Life Master Pairs are not “open”.)
March 26
Art Korth edited this comment March 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This may seem strange coming from me, as I am a lawyer.

One of the problems here is one of interpretation of a rule that was written in a manner that created a problem in interpretation.

Think of how easy this situation would be to understand if the rule were written in this manner:

“For purposes of stratification and for the purpose of eligibility to play in events with upper masterpoint limitations, a player will be deemed to have 40,000 masterpoints if that player has won an event which qualifies that player for Grand Life Master rank upon attaining the masterpoint total required for Grand Life Master rank.”

The question would then be simply a matter of whether the rule made any sense or was fair, but there would not be any problem of interpretation.
March 25
Art Korth edited this comment March 25
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What was the worst call? Pass over 3. Much too good of a hand to pass.

4 may be a worse bid in a vacuum, but the damage had already been done. 4 is a truly timid bid.

I give the blame entirely to North as South could not possibly get this hand right after North's pass over 3. That is not to say that the partnership would have reached slam if North had bid over 3, but it had no chance when he did not.
March 22
Art Korth edited this comment March 22
.

Bottom Home Top