Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Shawn's comments match my experience. I found that there was a lot of guesswork involved in playing Fantunes the bidding system (this has nothing to do with leads). Having ways to clarify the types of hands held through other means sure makes things a lot easier.
March 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I tried Fantunes for a short time. Unfortunately I didn't play the complete system. I learned about the rest of the system from Boye, et al.
March 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
TD body cams!
March 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3NT is an underbid only in the sense that you might bid 3NT with a significantly weaker hand. You can only do so much over a preempt.

I suppose you could stand up when you bid 3NT to indicate extra values. But some purists might take exception to that.
March 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That might not be such a success when partner's heart stopper is QJx(x).
March 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You run the risk of playing a different contract than the field which is doomed to a worse result even if it is a technically superior contract. No amount of superior playing ability will make up for a contract that is doomed from the outset.
March 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No doubt that insufficient information was provided. I would definitely rule in favor of the non-offending pair, if I could locate them.
March 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you can outplay the field then it makes sense to play the same contracts as the field.
March 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The idea that this hand is outside of the range of a 1NT opening is just wrong for two reasons.

First, it is important to convey as much information as quickly as possible. Even if this hand is slightly heavy for a 15-17 1NT opening, it gets the message across about hand type and strength in a clear and unambiguous manner in a single call.

Second, we do not play this game in a vacuum. It is more difficult for the opponents to intervene safely over a 1NT opening bid than over a 1 opening bid. Making life more difficult for the opponents is often at least as important as making life easier for our side.

It is my experience that opening 1NT as often as possible tends to work out well for my side and less well for the opponents. Occasionally missing a better game or slam in a minor suit is a trade off I am willing to accept.
March 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, I can remember an instance of a procedural penalty being imposed in live play. In a regional swiss match about 6 months ago, against some prominent players, my partnership was assessed a 1 VP penalty for an improperly disclosed defense against the opponents' strong club opening. We had recently changed our defense and we had not yet changed our convention card.
March 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Procedural penalties exist almost exclusively on Bridgewinners - not in the real world.

I cannot remember the last time I saw or heard of a PP imposed in actual play.
March 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If East thought he was making a DONT double, then he should self-alert.

Having said that, I do not see how NS were damaged. Clearly, neither E nor W had any UI. So they can bid what they want to bid. They are allowed to get lucky.

Are you suggesting that either N or S would take an action that would result in a better result if informed that the double was DONT?

It does not matter what other EW pairs might have done. This E bid his hearts and got to 4. The best that NS can do is bid to 5 and go for 300. Are you suggesting that it is possible for NS to bid to 5?
March 15
Art Korth edited this comment March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John: There was no irregularity. The only thing that happened was that a board was played one segment too early. That should not trigger any of the adjustments that you refer to.

A board that is supposed to be played (eventually) was played. A result was obtained on the board. Where is the grounds for any sort of adjustment?

Sometimes common sense just has to prevail.
March 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The board was played to a valid result. The result should stand. The board had to be played in any event, so I can't think of any reason why the result should not stand.
March 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Is east good enough for a 3♠ bid?”

I don't know. But the hand that East held certainly justifies a 3 bid.
March 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This auction occurred this past Saturday morning at a one-session Sectional Open Pairs. The side that bid to 7 was not a very experienced pair.

I commented at the time that I believed that this was the first and last recorded instance of this auction:

All vul

3 - P - 7 - P
P - 7 - All Pass

7 was making on a finesse. 7 was down 6.

My partner (the 7 bidder) decided that these two opponents would not bid 7 in this manner unless they had about 18 tricks. He was correct (with the winning finesse). So he decided with 5530 shape to take a shot at something other than -2140. The failure to double was unexplainable.

And, yes, the opps could make 2220. But that is not the issue.

By the way, we scored 22.5 out of 25 for this result. Not getting a top is not earthshattering news, as this was a very uneven field. But the half-matchpoint?
March 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem says “doubling.” Whether this includes “redoubles” is a matter of semantics. I would answer the question both ways - with and without redoubles.

This question has been answered in many places. I just can't put my finger on one at this time.
Feb. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
.

Bottom Home Top