Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Aviv Shahaf
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 234 235 236 237
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Follow up question:
Based on this poll, Do you consider Pass to be a Logical Alternative?
3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would hope that a self respecting playing TD would know to bid 3NT in such a scenario and then they wouldn’t need to apologize or make any ruling…
5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I just want to repeat what I said on the other post:

“IMO Passing is not a LA so if responder passed and caught partner with a hand that made that choice a success (I've seen players at the club make the 2NT bid with 14 hcp…) I would rule that the BIT demonstrably suggested Pass to that player and would adjust the score.”

As you can probably tell, I’ve seen this scenario before…
5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ML: your point about declarer countering the diamond attack by ducking is (as you also acknowledge) one of the best arguments for a diamond lead. Not necessarily for the gain of tempo but more for the value of seeing dummy and possibly partner’s signal before deciding which Major to attack.
Also, if we have a Major we can effectively attack then declarer might not be able to afford to duck our lead and will instead hope we have a 7 card suit.

Also, your statement “some major-suit card rates to be optimal virtually 100% of the time partner is short in the suit” is completely off.
Sometimes there is just no lead that will beat the contract and any major suit lead will cost an over trick (or 2 or 3…)
And as you mentioned, even if partner has the right 5 card major, you need to guess which major to attack, when guessing the wrong Major could easily be the key to help declarer making.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My point is that your construction very conveniently places partner with only 1 diamond.
Since partner is more likely to have 2+ than 1- diamonds, I believe that setting up diamonds is our best bet.

The other point is that we already put pressure on the opponents and forced them to guess.
There is no need to look for an unusual defense, that requires exotic layouts.
As far as we know the opponents could belong in 4

We have a long suit which needs at most 2 tempos to be established.
We have a potential entry with the K.
Any other plan requires that partner holds a perfect hand.
The fact that the diamond lead also cannot cost a trick while any other lead carries that risk is just a bonus.

As you said, The goal is to beat the contract.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn’t dummy at least as likely to hold QTxx J9xx xx KQx?
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Suit agreement or Game (either partner is allowed to Pass 3NT even if they didn’t agree on a suit…)
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, I think you are confused about the meaning of “UI”
UI = Unauthorized Information which is not the same as Useful Information.
All Henrik is correctly saying is that any BIT provide some UI.
Even if the UI does not help in any way it is still UI.
Even if the UI is not exact, as when the BIT could be caused by either a weaker hand or a stronger hand (1M - 3M after BIT is one example), it is still UI.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The only thing that the Q lead might give away is tempo.
I cant say that about any other lead and since a diamond lead is as likely to be necessary to beat the contract it seams like the only logical option.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If we judge that Responder was using the BIT, possibly under the belief that s/he is protected by the anonymity of the hesitator, and it was indeed Opener who hesitated, then the score should be adjusted if it worked to their advantage.
The much more interesting question is what we do if we judge they were using the BIT but it was actually Advancer who hesitated…
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hendrik, that doesn’t make sense, in order for you to not realize you still had a bid you would have had to not only miss your partner XX but also miss your LHO X.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bernard, imagine that they were playing electronically with North Self-alerting the 1 bid.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that a director should not give a weighted score ruling without a scoring program that enable it.

Your poll however was about what a committee should do…
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I abstained because giving a weighted score was not given as an option.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the poll options were not phrased optimally…

I would have replaced options 1/2/3 with:
1. Bidding 3NT is a Logical Alternative
2. Bidding 3NT is Not a Logical Alternative
3. Passing is a Logical Alternative
4. Passing is not a Logical Alternative
The reminder of the options are marginally ok.
I would ask respondents to pick 1 out of 1-2 and 1 out of 3-4.

IMO Passing is not a LA so if responder passed and caught partner with a hand that made that choice a success (I've seen players at the club make the 2NT bid with 14 hcp…) I would rule that the BIT demonstrably suggested Pass to that player and would adjust the score.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I actually voted both 1 and 9.

I voted 1 because Forcing to game is the only LA and OP did not specify what are the agreements for bids between 2NT and 3NT so based on these conditions 3NT is the only LA.

I also voted 9 because I believe 3 could be a LA if the partnership has an agreement regarding what it shows.
My preference is that it shows the strength for 3NT with doubt about spades (since Spades is the only suit Responder denied)
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
the relevant quote is:

“Three Passes to End an Auction:

It is all too frequent that players get in the habit of tapping the table to indicate a pass, or scooping up their previous bidding cards to indicate a pass, or even tapping on a previous double to indicate they are repeating the double. Such habits can create distinct problems in auctions.

In ACBL’s guidelines for use of Bidding Boxes:

FINAL PASS

When a player picks up his bidding cards from the table when he knows he has a turn coming and he INTENDS for that to be interpreted as a pass, then he has passed (otherwise Law 25B could come into play).

When a player picks up his bidding cards because he thinks the auction is already over and he has no turn coming, he has not passed. He gets to do whatever he wants without penalty. UI issues may be involved.”
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Placing the Pass card.
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought he was debating between bidding 6 or 7…
Jan. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As useful as the question
Jan. 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 234 235 236 237
.

Bottom Home Top