Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is just absurd. The idea that the player with the Qxx of spades would blame his play on the remark of the declarer sounds like something one of my children might have done. Attempting to get the trick back by complaining to the TD or appealing to a committee is embarrassing. Actually getting the trick back is embarrassing to the TD or the committee.
May 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Decades back one had to qualify at the CLUB level for the Unit competition, and then qualify at the UNIT level to get to the District competition. This was not that easy, as the rules at the time were that you had one shot at the club level qualifying, and only the top 40% qualified. So, if you got a small turnout at the club game that you went to and several good teams showed up, odds were that one or two of the good teams would not advance.

Even the Unit competition was not a slam dunk. I remember the first year that my team won the District we barely survived the Unit qualifying. I could not play in the first session, and when I got there we were below average. We wound up in a three way for the final two matches and blitzed both to advance.
May 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe that some of the very large districts in the Western US do conduct their matches online.
May 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That depends on your District. The several times I played at the NABC in the GNT, I did pay entry fees. The team did receive a flat subsidy.
May 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
6 is a pretty good contract, even on a trump lead.
April 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 over 2 says nothing. However, accepting the transfer in competition does say something. The fact that opener “accepted the transfer” by making an insufficient bid shows that he does have some sort of heart fit. Under these circumstances, 3 does not say anything different.
April 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The tempo of your play should be independent of the tempo of your opponent's play. Don't let your opponent's rapid play influence the tempo of your play.
April 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can't change your system to cater to this type of hand. If partner can't compete to 3 on his own then either it is right to not bid 3 or you just have to give up on this particular hand. You can't have everything.
April 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My first reaction in making a choice among those available was to choose remaining count unless this is clearly known or irrelevant. And that is a reasonable choice. But my preference would be to give partner information that he needs to know, based on the entirety of the hand. Often remaining count is what partner needs to know. But there are always exceptions.

So I chose some combination of remaining count and suit preference - each hand depends upon the specifics.
April 26, 2016
Art Korth edited this comment April 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This was partner's hand:

xx
AKQTx
J9xxxx


A diamond lead allows declarer to pitch one of his two heart losers on the AK of diamonds. Obviously, a club lead is the most successful. Double dummy it could lead to a 3 trick set.
April 26, 2016
Art Korth edited this comment April 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He would have been better off dead. Passing at any time short of 5 would have been better.
April 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner held:

xx
KQT9x
AQJTxx
—-

You get a spade lead against any contract. So the opps take the first two spades. The K is onside and hearts break, so you make 11 tricks in either red suit contract.
April 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I raised to 3S, a call which my partner agrees with.

Here is partner's hand:

3
JT8764
J7
9843

Partner played in 3S undoubled and managed to take 2 tricks for -350. This was good for over 70% of the matchpoints.

Had I passed 3D, we would have been -150, -170 or -190. In any event, the matchpoint result would have been only slighly better - between 75% and 83%.

So, partner had already won the board against these opps, who were cold for 11 tricks in spades and diamonds.
April 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know if the result is particularly relevant. But I will add them to my problems after a reasonable period of time.
April 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bridge robots respond weirdly to any show of strength. Recently, playing against robots, I arrived at a 4S contract and my LHO doubled. When it came back to me, I redoubled. My robot partner, rather than play in 4S redoubled, decided to Blackwood.
April 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mechanical errors can be corrected up to a point. Once the auction proceeds beyond the erroneous “call” and information is exchanged, the ability to correct mechanical errors is lost.

On the ACBL webpage is an article titled BIDDING BOX REGULATIONS. It is found on the Tournaments page under Charts, Rules and Regulations. Under “Choosing a Call Using Bidding Boxes” is the following language:

“A player is obligated to choose a call before touching any card in the box. Deliberation while touching the bidding box cards may subject the offending side to the adjustment provisions of Law 16.

A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made. We should use unauthorized information where reasonably appropriate (where we can rule that a bid has not been made). For close cases simply judge that the card had not left the confines of the box; therefore, a call has not been made.

The onus is on the player to convince the director that a mechanical irregularity has occurred. Calls from different pockets should rarely, if at all, be judged as inadvertent. One understandable exception is placing the double card out followed shortly with a bid card that skips the bidding. This appears clear that the double card was placed inadvertently on the table.”

The quoted regulations do not indicate what happens if the auction proceeds past the “mechanical irregularity,” but it is obvious that the longer the error is uncorrected the more difficult it becomes to correct it.
April 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, with all due respect, your approach just does not work.

I once tried to deal with UI issues by arguing that I can make any call that I like as long as it is based solely on my cards. I got into a long discussion with a TD at a tournament after I acted on my cards after a BIT by partner. I made the argument that I was acting as if we were playing with screens and I was not aware of the BIT by partner, and I was bidding my cards as if nothing had happened. The argument just does not fly. One cannot unring the bell - once there is UI everything changes.

Your argument is somewhat different in that you seem to be attempting to use the UI to your advantage. I cannot agree with that. Others have reacted in a stronger manner. You have to understand that if you have UI you CANNOT use it - it is as if it never happened. In this case, the bell MUST be unrung. Yes, the laws allow you to make any call that you like; however, if your call is based upon UI, you can count on receiving an adjusted score. Moreover, you may also be subject to other sanctions if it is determined that you deliberately used UI in choosing your action. And, perhaps most important, you may earn a reputation as someone who attempts to use UI to your advantage. I am sure that you do not want that to happen.
April 22, 2016
Art Korth edited this comment April 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is an obvious problem with that. On this hand, the K by itself does not insure that there are 13 tricks available. However, the K doubleton or tripleton along with one or two clubs only (assuming no Q) or FOUR clubs with the singleton (or more) K increases your chances of making 13 tricks significantly.

I doubt that there is any bidding sequence that will get partner to bid the grand in confidence, so I am willing to settle for the small hoping to do well whether it makes or not.
April 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Recently, playing IMPs (short matches), my partner opened 2 at equal non-vul. After 3 - P - 4 he bid 5! He was 6-6.

This was not a success, as it went 2 down while I had AKTxx of hearts, among other things.
April 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How do I proceed? I guess to bid 6. Which I might have done on the previous round.

The takeout double ran the risk of going ALL PASS, and, given my hand, that is not as small a risk as it would usually be.

The more interesting problem is what do I do over 7? Given the vulnerability, and the fact that my opps were willing to pass out 4, that is not likely to occur (and I hope that it does not occur).
April 20, 2016
Art Korth edited this comment April 20, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top