Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Happy Birthday, Steve!

I didn't recognize the hand until I looked it up. I opened the hand 2 (a max in our methods). Partner was going to key card (4) until his RHO doubled. Partner then settled for 4. But next hand, apparently believing his partner, bid 4. This went for 2000 (declarer may not have found the best line). This was a nationwide top.
Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I once played in one of the 55% Robot Rebate tournaments on BBO against only one other player and I won all 12 boards - 100%.

I posted about it on the BBO Forums and it was reported to me that this is not unprecedented. In fact, I was told that it happens quite often in small games.
Aug. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@ David Yates: With Mike Shuster, I play a strong club with 4 card majors (with canapé), intermediate (10-14) 2 bids and 13-15 1NT. A 1 opening bid denies a 4-card major (10-14, 3+ diamonds except 3325).

Does that qualify as a “really screwy, unusual system?”

By the way, the current name for it is CRAP 2.0 (“Canape Relay and Precision”).
Aug. 21
Art Korth edited this comment Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play XYZ in this sequence, so 2 would be an artificial game force and 3 would be strong (slammish) with long clubs (2NT would be a puppet to 3 allowing responder to get out in 3).

I have the agreement with my partners that play XYZ that splinters are shown by bidding 2NT (puppet to 3) followed by 3 of a suit - in this case, 3 (splinter in clubs). So 4 would not be a splinter (although that is what I voted for, assuming no XYZ).

So, there really is no definition for the 4 bid in this sequence using XYZ. That leaves open the possibility of Gerber, to handle the perfect ace asking hand such as:

x
KQxx
KQxxxxx
x

or variations of the same (exchange an Ace for one of the small cards (preferably a red Ace), for example). If that agreement is in place, it allows for a drop in 4 opposite zero (hard to believe) or one ace. Opposite 2 aces we can't stop at the 4 level when the trump suit is hearts. Without this agreement, one would have to force to game, agree on hearts and use RKCB. So you wind up at the 5 level (at least) in all cases.

EDIT: In consultation with one of my partners, it was pointed out to me that the sequence 1X-1Y-1Z-2NT-3-(3 of a suit) shows specifically 4441 short in the suit of the last call (clubs if the suit is Y). So I made a few errors - 3 on the sequence 1-1-1-2NT-3-3 would have shown 4144 (short hearts) game forcing, and the way to show 4441 (short clubs) is to rebid 3 (a known real suit) over 3. As for the sequence in the OP, it does show a splinter - just not a 4441 hand.
Aug. 21
Art Korth edited this comment Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, if I may add my 2 cents.

In Las Vegas, I played in the following events:

2 days of the GNT
2 days of the LMs
2 days of regional pair events
1 day of regional Swiss teams

I found that, generally speaking, the level of “nastiness” was higher in the regional games than in the NABC+ games.
Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just checking.

Your partner bid 7 over 6x?
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought that the OP was wrong, so I checked one of the Daily Bulletins from Las Vegas (happened to be the second Friday). He is correct! There was a listing showing the pairings in a morning KO, but no results of recently concluded KOs other than major events.

I suppose that as all of the results are available on ACBL Live, there is no necessity for listing the results in the Daily Bulletin. And quite a bit of the information that used to appear in the Daily Bulletin, such as listings by section of all pair events (admittedly in small print) no longer appear in the Daily Bulletin.

I can only conclude that the availability of all of the information online has led to a reduction in the results shown in the Daily Bulletin.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fred: I played against David's team in the first round of the GNT Swiss Qualifying in Las Vegas (and against you and Sheri in the third round).

Could you tell me which direction David was sitting? We didn't properly introduce ourselves to each other and I have no idea whether I played against David and Mark or their teammates.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought you were Number 2. Who is Number 1?

(Sorry - The Prisoner, not The Twilight Zone).
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On the first hand, in the side suits you held AK AK and KQ and could not defeat 6. I would say that this is quite unlucky. You should expect significant distribution in the opposing hands, but this is just too much. And it is not like you had a lot of room to figure out what was going on.

On the second hand, West's hand is far less defensively oriented than on the first hand and, fresh off the -1190, I can understand bidding one more. Unfortunately, this time pard had them. If the opponents hearts were divided 2-0 …..

This looks like one of those teaching hands where your hand and partner's hand are unchanged but the opponents' hands change to point out how your line of play would not succeed against all layouts (assuming that there was a 100% line of play and that you did not find it).

Edit to correct typo.
Aug. 12
Art Korth edited this comment Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What I am mystified about is that I have 2 Silver Ribbon qualifications. The only event I ever played in that could produce a Silver Ribbon qualification was the Silver Ribbon pairs, and I did not finish in the top 10.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Kenton:I became an LM in 1977. I find it hard to believe that you earned a Blue Ribbon qualification for finishing second in a non-masters pairs event. At the time, qualifications were awarded only for firsts and clear seconds in events with no upper master point restrictions.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a rule about repeated doubles.

If one partner doubles a contract and the other partner pulls it, and the opponents bid one more, if the original doubler doubles again, IT HAD BETTER GO DOWN.
Aug. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would sooner bid 8 than pass 5x.

(Before anyone cites chapter and verse on the sanctions for making an illegal call, this is a joke).
July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg:

The man had 13 cards in his hand. He had to follow suit 13 times. Only on one of those 13 plays did he have any difficulty playing a card.

I may be getting more cynical as I get older. But I am trying not to get any more naïve.

Many years ago I was playing in a club game and one of my opponents (who I already held in low esteem) did exactly the same thing - every other play was normal, but on the play of the crucial suit in which my partner had a two-way guess, this opponent fumbled over a holding of two small. When confronted, she blamed some ailment. I didn't believe it then, and I don't believe it now.
July 31
Art Korth edited this comment July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jim:

You could not be more correct.

Story from two days later.

Playing with a different partner in a regional pair game, my partner was declaring a diamond partial. He led a trump off dummy (Kxxx) and his RHO fumbled noticeably before following small. My partner, holding AJTxx, won the Ace and played low to dummy's King, on which the fumbler showed out. On the next trick, my partner led a heart towards his hand, on which the fumbler rose with the Ace, crashing his partner's singleton King.

At the conclusion of the round, with several minutes remaining before the start of the next round, I left the table and sought out a TD. I explained what had happened. The TD said that he would talk to the fumbler in a few rounds so that it was not patently obvious which board he was talking about.

I returned to the table and we changed for the next round. Our new opponents were not present, and my partner commented to me about the crashed honors “It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy!” Needless to say, my partner was referring to the fumble.
July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Ian:

There must be some territory between declarer stating that he took a particular line of play because, in his opinion, his LHO hitched on the play of the King and “this annoying ch**ting b**t**d deliberately hesitated so I got that wrong sorry partner.”

@Karen:

Saying that “the hitch generally denies the key card” implies to me that the hitch is deliberate. Is that what you are implying?

You go on to say that with the Ace the defender would be ready for the play of the King and would be more likely to play smoothly to the trick. I find the logic of this baffling. Why would the defender not play smoothly to the trick without the Ace unless there was a deliberate attempt to deceive the declarer?
July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My partner and I had a disagreement on this exact sequence on the first day of the GNT in Las Vegas. Cost a slam swing.

I have since come around to his view that it shows a 3 card limit raise.
July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many years ago, I played in a sectional in Richmond, Virginia. I believe the sectional began on Friday night, but I did not play Friday night. Glenn Lublin did, however, and he won the Friday night event and the two-session open pairs on Saturday (my partner and I were second on Saturday).

On Sunday, his team met mine in round 7 of 8 of the Swiss Teams. The Swiss was scored at win-loss. My team had won our first 6 matches, and Glenn's team had one loss. But Glenn's team beat mine to match our record at 6 wins and 1 loss. Both our teams won the last round to finish in a tie. As was his wont, Glenn told anyone who would listen how he had achieved a hat trick - three wins. We disputed his conclusion, as he only tied for the win in the Swiss, but that didn't stop Glenn.
July 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@DZ: Is your comment directed towards me as the OP? I posted this because I was very bothered by the table talk, which I interpreted, rightly or wrongly, as an accusation of unethical conduct. I do not believe that I overreacted, but I wanted to find out if others agreed or disagreed.
July 30
Art Korth edited this comment July 30
.

Bottom Home Top