Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Aviv Shahaf
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My plan is to treat this as an Hx in support of Hearts.
I bid 2NT and hope to raise Hearts on the next round if I get a chance.
With some partners I would raise to 3 directly.
Aug. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play that (1) 2 is Natural but after (1) Pass (1NT)… it doesn’t make sense because both opponents imply club length.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Phil, There is nothing wrong with the timing of the call.
I’m sure the facts were not in dispute (the player held a club suit but his partner alerted his bid as a transfer to diamonds).
There is no reason to call the director if there is no damage.
Once the deal is finished and you feel like you might have been damaged by an opponent’s illegal action then you should call the director.
You should call the directors earlier if the facts might be disputed (like when opponents hesitate but deny it).
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit, As Andy said, it is all about Damage.
We can and should adjust the score in both parallel universes if the use of UI led to a more favorable result to the offending side.

If the offending side wanted to avoid such rulings then they should have not chosen an action that was suggested by the UI and hoped to survive..
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did the director give any explanation as to why s/he ruled this way? (other than the quoted remark)
Did s/he conducted any kind of a poll?
Assuming the answer to both questions is “no”, why didn’t you appeal that silly ruling?
Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, I usually find your analyses very insightful.
In this case I think you are way off.
Yes, you can come up with reasonable auctions, that may not be using the UI, to get to 4.
You can also come up with an equally reasonable auctions that leads to 6 and some that stop short of game.
Who do you think should be getting the benefit of the doubt?
Also, it’s not like the opponents tried to have a reasonable auction… they blatantly used the UI and chose a bid that would keep them out of trouble… Obviously they though that if they didn’t then they might not be able to.
Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rich, the hand you gave should have overcalled 2
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whether they showed extras or not, my reasoning concerning the 4 bid remains the same.
Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marshall, I think it would be rather hard to follow our plan of 2-3-4 if partner jumps to 5 at some point…

I think what Phil is trying to say is that the 2NT bid is much better at revealing our intentions if we are hoping to be able to bid Spades naturally later.
as many reasoned before - “If we could only survive this round…”
Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I bid 1… how much trouble can I get into?
Aug. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Although I agree with the general consensus that East should have better protected themselves, and does not deserve an adjustment in their favor, Since it was South responsibility to summon the director before bidding 1NT, once they realized they failed to alert prior to East’s Pass, I would seriously consider, and may actually award, an adjusted score to the N/S side only.
In order to know what adjustment to apply I would need further information about the N/S methods over a 1 overcall.
Aug. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner bid a Non Forcing 2NT, promising a stopper in spades.
when we showed extras and both minors partner had many options to support clubs while keeping the auction lower, and the earlier 2NT bid (and also our own singleton) rules out the option of a Splinter raise, and the non forcing nature of the 2NT bid makes slam ambitions from partner very unlikely, so the 4S bid is not showing support for any of our suits.
This leaves only one option, Partner is suggesting a contract.
Either our opponent psyched or maybe just have a poor suit.
Well done partner for finding a sequence that should make it clear you want to play in spades!
(Too bad so many would choose to trust the opponents rather than you…)
Aug. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom,
With all due respect, in my vast experience as a director you are completely wrong.
Players are much more understanding when ruled against if they are the ones that caused the issue as opposed to when ruled against even though the opponents where the ones who created the problem, The second pair feels they got robbed twice - once by the opponents and then by the director.
It is not even close…
July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Which scenario do you think is more likely to get someone to quit the game?

Scenario A: The opponents forget an agreement and because of it the other pair cannot reach their optimal contract.
The director is called but cannot adjust the score.
The pair is so upset about that fix which there was nothing they could have done to avoid so they quit the game.

Scenario B: a pair forgets an agreement which prevents the opponents from reaching their optimal contract.
The director is called and adjust the score (based on future change in the laws).
The Pair decides to quit the game.
July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My point is this…
That pair had an agreement which was documented on their convention card.
The explanation given conform to that “agreement”.
Based on the current laws there was no infraction.
The player that Doubled thought they had a different “agreement”.
I believe it shouldn’t matter which player was wrong about their “agreement” and that the laws should state that all such scenarios be treated as if the pair had no agreement.
July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just from today…
The auction went: 1NT - Double…
The double was alerted and explained as “1 long suit” (playing DONT).
Doubler in fact had a 4333 with a good opening hand values.
The Pair was made up of 2 individuals who needed a partner and only met 30 minutes before game time.
When I investigated about their agreements it turned out that when they filled out the convention card it was the player who doubled that insisted they play DONT, and the card was showing Double as a Single Suit, but they did not discuss the meaning of any of the bids over 1NT beyond agreeing to play DONT.
Apparently the Doubler thought that when playing DONT a Double is either a Single Suit or a Good hand…
Do you think that there was MI or was it a Misbid?
July 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No Ed, we don’t shoot it but we should judge whether there was damage, and if there was damage we should adjust the score.
As in hesitation cases, sometimes there would be no damage and no adjustment.
July 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with that statement Richard.
However, this would be a rather silly agreement for the 2NT bid in that auction, and not the Way “Good/Bad” 2NT is played.
July 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another case of Agreement Disruption.
West was playing the 2 bid as Michaels and East was playing it as Natural.
Silly Laws dictates that we need to decide which agreement they actually had, even though they clearly did not have one on this specific hand, and rule differently depending on which player we deem to have forgotten their actual “agreement”.
A much better way would be to treat all such incidents as if they did not have an agreement, which means that any explanation they give that state they have a specific agreement is MI.
This should be mostly solved when we start using electronic devices and bids will be self alerted.

Now, regarding the actual hand in OP…
Even if my wished for laws were in effect, I would still rule that there was no damage because both North and South should have been aware of what’s going on and should have Doubled 5 for a top.
In other words, the E/W actions did not cause damage, they were giving N/S a top on a silver platter.
July 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well,
West must proceed as if it was Michaels because they actually intended it as Michaels.
East proceeded as if it was Spades until it was clear from the auction that it can’t possibly have been spades.
July 29
.

Bottom Home Top