Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, the bidding shocks me.

But it would not shock me to find that if I don't lead a top heart at trick one that declarer will make a lot of tricks by ruffing diamonds. Maybe even 10 tricks (although that would also shock me). The worst lead would be a diamond. At least, that is what I think before seeing the dummy.
March 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sometimes the steal is perfectly timed. This looks like one of those times. East can't know that North's bid is anything but genuine, and a club lead could result in 5 tricks for the defense against a normal 3NT contract. Even down 6 might score well for NS, and down 1 was just icing on the cake.
March 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Attitude is my choice. But the fact that the issue is being discussed means that the partnership needs to discuss this and arrive at an agreement. Whether one agreement is better than the other is not the issue - as long as the partners have the same agreement you will have a reasonable chance of getting the position right.
March 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think I would want to be in slam with the West cards, but given that slam is marginal at best I can't really give West any blame for not bidding it.

Slam requires either the spade finesse or a lucky lie of the club suit providing 3 winners. A practical problem is that if you attack clubs, one of three things may happen:

(1) North wins the A (neither the J or 10 appearing from South) and plays a spade. Now what?
(2) North wins the A (South playing the 10 or the J of clubs) and plays a spade. Now what?
(3) You win the first round of clubs with the King. Now what? (Your choice whether a J or 10 of clubs is played by either opponent).

In short, I am not too concerned about missing this slam.

March 29, 2016
Art Korth edited this comment March 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't agree that 4 is right. South denied a club control. North needs to move forward with a club control as it could be the only reason South is not bidding a slam.
March 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4NT is clearly the first wrong bid if one accepts the explanations provided. 4 would announce an additional spade control, imply a club control (as slam is impossible without one) and put the focus on the diamond situation. If South can envision 12 tricks opposite a hand with 2 spade controls, some kind of club control but no diamond control, then South should make another forward move. On this hand, he should not. In addition to what North has promised, South needs assurance that there are not two losers on a diamond lead. If North had bid 4, South would know that North had AK or singleton A of spades, A or KQ of clubs, and essentially nothing else. More is needed for slam.

By bidding 4NT, North took over control. Clearly, North was not in a position to take control. The answer to 4NT does not provide the information North needs to make the right decision.
March 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is not a question of “everybody does it.” It is a question of balancing the privacy rights of the individual (in this case, the CEO) against the need of the organization for the information. It is not readily apparent to me why the entire BOD needs to be privy to all of the details of the CEO's employment contract. Perhaps you can make an argument why the BOD should have that information.
March 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know if it is true or not. But it is not insane. In many organizations, there is a smaller group within the BOD (the finance committee, the compensation committee, the executive committee) that reviews personnel matters for the top officers in the organization. The details are not disseminated generally to the entire BOD.
March 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dave Treadwell told a story about not being able to defeat 4x. He said that after a long period of not beating that contract, he finally had it beat. He doubled 4 holding the AKQJ of diamonds! Before he could win his four trump tricks, partner revoked.
March 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the absence of the old-fashioned Goren era direct cue bid forcing to game, double followed by a cue bid must be that hand - unconditionally forcing to game. So the 3 bid would be natural, essentially equivalent to opening a strong, forcing and artificial 2 and rebidding 3.
March 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tony?
March 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gary:

I assume you are joking. The “rule of coincidence” has been discredited for some very long time. But, if nothing else, any case where the “rule of coincidence” would apply is certainly worth a recorder's memo.
March 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree.

Where is there any evidence of fielding the psych? Did anything happen at the table that was out of the ordinary? What is the level of expertise of these players? Is there any history of an action like this?
March 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would expect that the SEC of the IBF has authority to discipline its own players for ethical violations regardless of where those ethical violations take place. But if someone with knowledge of the rules of the IBF can point to anything that would lead to an opposite conclusion, please do so.
March 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course the double is an intervening cause of the damages. It occurred between the 2 call and the final contract of 4x. To be a superseding cause, it could not have been foreseeable by West when he made his overcall. The only way that West could reasonably foresee that his overcall would result in East's double of 4 on a hand close to the one East held is if West had a complete psychological profile of East and knew he (and not his hand) was unbalanced. No rational West could possibly foresee that East would double 4 on East's actual hand. Therefore, East's double is a superseding cause of the damage totally unrelated to the 2 overcall.

This is beginning to sound like a law school exam.
March 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Regarding the jaywalker, the point that I made is in the context of a suit against the jaywalker and the driver for damage to the parked car. The question is not whether it is reasonably foreseeable that the jaywalker would put himself in danger by jaywalking. That question has nothing to do with the responsibility for the damages to the parked car. The question is whether it is reasonably foreseeable that by jaywalking he could cause a driver to swerve into a parked car causing property damage.

It is not the responsibility of the jaywalker to foresee that there will be a negligent driver who will react to his jaywalking by swerving and causing property damage. The question is whether it is reasonably foreseeable that his jaywalking could cause any driver to swerve and cause property damage.

Your bridge question is whether, by overcalling 2, he could cause his partner to double 4 unsuccessfully. Perhaps. But there is a disconnect between a reasonable but unsuccessful double of 4 and THIS double of 4. Or, as it would be put in a legal setting, the chain of causation has been broken.
March 11, 2016
Art Korth edited this comment March 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not an expert on negligence law, but the “but for” test is part of the determination of proximate cause. In your example, the proximate cause of the accident is the driver's behavior - texting, driving under the influence, or whatever. The jaywalker walking in front of his vehicle was a reasonably foreseeable event which would have been easily dealt with but for the driver's negligent conduct. Yes, it is also true that the accident might not have occurred but for the jaywalker. But since the accident is a reasonably foreseeable result of the driver's negligent conduct, the driver is still liable.

If this were a civil case - the owner of the parked car was suing the driver and the jaywalker for damages - it might come down to who was more responsible or, in a jurisdiction which uses comparative negligence - how much each party was responsible. Holding the jaywalker responsible for damage to the parked car is not outlandish - it is also a question of proximate cause. Is it reasonably foreseeable that by jaywalking one could cause a driver to swerve to avoid hitting the jaywalker, thus causing property damage?

All of this sounds more like a law school class than real life. But to apply it to the bridge problem, one could ask whether it is reasonably foreseeable that West, by overcalling 2, would cause his partner to make a penalty double of 4 on a hand which, as Michael Rosenberg puts it, cannot be reasonably sure to defeat 7?

Edited to change “comparative damages” to “comparative negligence.”
March 11, 2016
Art Korth edited this comment March 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe that this is the fourth post and third thread to mention this article. Two of the posts were in the same thread.
March 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed:

Quoting from the Mid-Chart:

The following items are approved for all Mid-Chart events of the specified round length (#), but pairs playing them must bring two copies of the approved written defense, offering a copy to each opponent.
http://www.acbl.org/?p=512

6. A 4 level minor opening showing an unspecified major. (2)

So the (2) refers to the specified round length, meaning that a 4 level minor opening showing an unspecified major is allowed in a Mid-Chart event with a round length of at least 2 boards.
March 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No. A vote for 100% East means that no one in their right mind would double 4 with the East hand after a 2 overcall by partner.

This is not a “but for” situation - “But for the 2 overcall, East would never have doubled 4.” No. There is no excuse for doubling 4 in any event.

This problem is similar to a humor article in The Bridge World. “I am playing partner for as little as AKx AKx xx AKxxx. We are going to murder this contract!”
March 10, 2016
Art Korth edited this comment March 10, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top