Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Having played as a teammate of Mike on numerous occasions, I know that whatever auction occurs at my table will not be duplicated at the other.
Feb. 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK. That settles it. No need for hearings. Guilty, barred for life.

Is that your idea of due process?
Feb. 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I used to play the jump reverse as a two-way bid - either a mini-splinter or a hand stronger than a full splinter (a maxi-splinter). Responder bids as if opener has a mini-splinter, and opener, with the big hand, bids on over any sign-off. This, combined with the regular double reverse showing a game forcing (with no extras) splinter, allowed opener to show various ranges of splinter bids easily.

My regular partner and I have recently changed our agreement so that the jump reverse shows a mini-splinter or better and the double jump reverse shows a void splinter.
Feb. 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand all the outrage on account of the delays. It is not as if the hearings will not take place. I would much rather the hearings be comprehensive and fair with each side getting all the time they need to prepare their cases than if the hearings were rushed.

At some point, no further delays will be tolerated and the hearings will take place and decisions will be rendered.

Personally, I applaud the manner in which the IBF is handling the case. The idea that the IBF is a laughingstock due to the delays is absurd. This is an unprecedented situation and is being handled very carefully. As is often said, the wheels of justice grind slowly but grind exceedingly fine.
Feb. 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe because he learned not to play Flannery some time ago.

(I hope that this does not lead to a discussion of the merits of Flannery)
Feb. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He can double holding that hand, but he will be greatly disappointed in the result.
Feb. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I was expressing my personal opinion, which is shared by many. It seems logical to set the line at 10 HCP as it is the average holding for any given hand. At or above 10 HCP it is reasonable to make an argument that bidding has more constructive aspects than obstructive aspects. Below 10 HCP that argument is harder to make on a balanced hand.
Jan. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because at some point a bid loses its constructive aspects and becomes entirely obstructive. Such tactics are subject to regulation by the governing bodies, and often are deemed to be not in the best interest of the game and are disallowed.
Jan. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Kit's points about the 10-12 NT.

Interestingly, if anyone out there remembers the original book on the K-S system, there was a forward by Edgar Kaplan in which he made a very cogent argument that it is just as important for a pair to prevent the opponents from arriving at their optimal contact as it is for our side to attempt to arrive at our optimal contract. Preventing the opponents from arriving at a vulnerable game through obstructive tactics is just as important at arriving at your own vulnerable game through constructive tactics. Part of the rational for playing the K-S 11-14 1NT opening was that it gave the weak NT bidder's side an advantage in both constructive and obstructive bidding.

The same can be said for the 10-12 1NT opening, if not more so. I am now playing a 10-13 1NT opening with one partner, and the opportunities for obstructive bidding after a 1NT opening are significant. That does not mean that a 10-12 (or a 10-13) 1NT opening is some sort of monster bid that should be banned. It is an extension of Edgar's argument in favor of the 11-14 1NT opening. Such arguments can be extended only so far, however. I don't believe that the argument should be extended to hands of below average strength, such as 9-11 HCP or 8-10 HCP. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and 10 HCP seems to be as good a place as any.

So, to the extent that Bobby Wolff is opposed to obstructive tactics and includes weak or mini NT openings in the category of obstructive tactics, I disagree with his argument. Weak and mini NTs are not the same thing as opening forcing passes and fert bids (such as a 1C opening showing 0-7, any distribution).
Jan. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't slam just plain 100% cold? You have 12 tricks on a major suit lead (assuming that either the K or 10 of hearts is played on a heart lead). On a minor suit lead, you eliminate the clubs and get to dummy to lead the HQ.
Jan. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Rich that declarer is extremely likely to have exactly 2 spades, so I continue the suit.

As for your other questions, I might double 3NT, but it is hard to believe that doubling is going to affect your score much, if at all. It is hard to believe that 3NT is going to be a common contract.

I like the spade A lead.
Jan. 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oren: “'First PP for not having a properly completed ACBL CC'

No chance you'd get a PP for this."

My partnership received a PP for not having TWO identical properly completed ACBL CCs in the first round of our District NAOP. We had one properly completed ACBL CC.

So the moral here is never say never.
Jan. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would someone be shocked to see you respond 1NT with a ZERO count? And then find that you and your partner had an explicit agreement to respond 1NT with a ZERO count?
Jan. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, there is a lot to be said about the ACBL's approach to alerts - the intentional use of “fuzzy language” to describe situations that merit an alert and those that do not makes a lot of sense. Otherwise you have to have a book which looks like an old New York City phone book to list all of the calls which are alertable and all those which are not. Does the use of “fuzzy language” make each situation clear? No. But one should lean towards alerting in unclear situations. As long as the purpose of an alert is full disclosure and not something else (UI?) I would have no problem with an alert.
Jan. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ken: I have represented a number of clients through IRS tax audits and I can state with complete confidence that charitable deductions such as the one obtained for a portion of a bridge entry fee will NOT raise any red flags with the IRS. The IRS is not looking to audit someone who takes a $1 charitable deduction for paying the entry fee to participate in a charity game.
Jan. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
a) No.

b) If the charitable portion of the entry fee is separately stated, that portion may be deductible.

c) Same - the charitable portion of the entry fee must be separately stated on the entry form.

You would have to be provided with a receipt setting forth the portion of the entry fee which is being given to the charity. There are other requirements. Without checking the rules, I would guess that the identity of the charity would have to be set forth on your receipt and the fact that donations to that charity are properly deductible under federal tax laws would also have to be spelled out on the receipt.

To the extent that you receive anything back of value the amount of your charitable deduction is reduced. I am sure that increased master point awards do not count as receiving anything of value for this purpose.
Jan. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It depends who is my partner. With one partner this is a clear 3 bid, as that is our style. With other partners I pass.
Jan. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Art, you do not need to have a partnership agreement to know that bidding with 4/4/5/0 when your partner opens a club is simply good bridge. I am terrible with comprehending what the percentages might be, but - perhaps a guess that 90 to 95% of the time, when my partner opens a minor and I respond, I'll have 5 HCP or more….”

Peg, with all due respect, it is comments like yours that make me think that I am talking to a wall when I make my posts.

All of what you say is true, and it has nothing to do with the OP. The entire point of the OP was that if the opponents have an AGREEMENT that their 1NT response can possibly show a ZERO count with 3 card support. It is one thing to respond light, especially with shape. It is an entirely other matter to essentially have an agreement to psych. There is no bridge reason to respond 1NT (forcing or semi-forcing) to a 1 opening on a 2344 zero count. If you want to respond 1NT to a 1 opening on a 3 or 4 count with some heart support, fine. I can understand that. But not a zero count. And if that is my opponents' agreement, I want to know about it.
Jan. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't have any problem with a forcing or semi-forcing 1NT response to one of a major possibly showing a light major suit raise, whether by partnership agreement or as a tactical bid. My problem is with a partnership agreement that the sequence 1M - 1NT - 2M shows 0-5 HCP and 3 card support. If the partnership has an agreement that 1NT followed by a raise could show xx xxx xxxx xxxx then I think the 1NT bid should be alerted.

I am not arguing the merits of the bid. I am not arguing that it makes bridge sense to respond to a 1C opening holding 4450 distribution and a 3 count. I am arguing that this partnership agreement is highly unusual and requires an alert.

This thread has gotten much too large (and I am adding to it). But many of the posts have nothing to do with the central point of the OP - is it misleading not to alert the 1NT response if the partnership has an agreement that a subsequent major suit raise can be made on a zero count? I vote that it is misleading not to alert the 1NT bid under these circumstances. Again, this has nothing to do with the merits of the bid. It is clearly not a tactical issue as there is a partnership agreement in place. If the opener knows that BY AGREEMENT responder may have this hand, his opponents have the right to know it as well.

Jan. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Who is this Wolff guy anyway? I am sure that David's credentials are far superior.

By the way, I am sure Bobby Wolff is a better Parcheesi player that David.
Jan. 9, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top