Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Avon Wilsmore
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And a thank-you to Mr Burn for clarifying the concept of “equity” as it applies to claims. Useful to have this properly defined.
Aug. 16, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mr Burn is quite right. A player who cannot count to 4 does not get to do any counting later on. Therefore, no squeezes.

What he can do is play big cards and put little ones on the big ones. On the current deal that means one down. Declarer did not have 4 diamond tricks when he said he did and he doesn't get gifted 4 diamond tricks later.

The director's line: “good deal of respect to West's declarer-playing abilities”, is one of the silliest red-herrings I have ever seen. The committee ruling was misguided at best.

Those who have trouble with this should consult the best director they can find and see what he has to say.
Aug. 16, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don't rush him! Give him time! He'll find the CapsLock key eventually. We'll know when he does…
Aug. 15, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Take, for example:
http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2167/

At the current time, 40% like X, 52% like Pass.

I much prefer X, but if I had a teammate who prefers to pass I would let the matter go with no discussion.

Mr Cem is on the right track:
Ten clones of me who were polled would all say that Pass is a LA, but none of me would do it at the table.
Aug. 15, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For the those unfamiliar:
http://www.duluthpoker.com/cheat-at-poker/mechanics-grip/
Aug. 15, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Quite so. If you can't count to 4 properly, you live with the consequences.

TD, committee members and East should all line up for a good kick in the Khyber.
Aug. 15, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And use some of the funds for a white-board and cattle-prod to educate the TD and committee…
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very cute and well-done.
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Recent history tells us that players bid vul games on next-to-nothing, relying on reasoning that ignores being doubled.

So, if N cannot raise then this is going down.

If this is a BIT “issue” I regard X as clearcut but would cheerfully accept any ruling to the contrary.
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand. Owe WHAT to their clients? An abdication of ethics and integrity?

First Mr Donn tells us about “an expert player” with the ethics of a tapeworm, now we have clients who want to be in on the resultant dirty work? Please.
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are some sick people in this world.

Keep filling out those forms!
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The question you ask about “how antipercentage” is a good one.

I think (independently of any replies you get from BW) you should buttonhole the best director you can find and go over the matter with him.

What you want is a specialist in bridge law; what you will get from BW is commentary from a range of players, from expert down.

Or, maybe write to David Stevenson: http://blakjak.org/#bas_menu
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The price has gone down - you get the $20 and she's all yours. No returns.
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He couldn't count his tricks correctly so he doesn't get to do any counting later.
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I give up. I shall leave the discussion to others. I forecast you will, yet again, will be a voice in the wilderness.

From an earlier article:

Such a genius is that great Dean Pokorny
That his likeness will never be born-y
If we all thought like he
What a paradise it would be
But on Bridge Winners is voice is forlorn-y
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No calculations are required.

People are forced to lose a trick to an outstanding trump after claiming; this declarer is forced to lose a trick to the outstanding D!Q.
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, the actual words were: “inferior, possibly careless”.

“Down one no matter who he or she is”.

That stuff about “good deal of respect to West's declarer-playing abilities” is irrelevant nonsense.
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Careless:
1. not paying enough attention to what one does: a careless typist.
2. not exact, accurate, or thorough: careless work.
3. done or said heedlessly or negligently; unconsidered: a careless remark.

Irrational:
1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.

Mr Thompson is quite right. It is NOT “utterly illogical” to play for an odds-against squeeze.

Declarer is down one because poor play is allowed.

Or, to put it another way, anyone who who is so careless as to think that he has four diamond tricks with that suit foregoes any and all rights to any fancy endings.
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Declarer is down one.

Mr Bethe is correct: declarer is allowed to be careless.

There have been innumerable instances where, following a claim, an expert declarer was forced to concede a trick to an unmentioned outstanding trump. If miscounting trumps is classed as “careless”, then declarer here is not allowed “some other pop-up squeeze”.

Mr Pokorny is mistaken: It is not for us to comment on the leading habits of the non-offending side. No unmarked winning finesses are allowed.

Reese wrote an article published in Bridge World (I think early 80s) where TR bid a grand slam and claimed. An opponent disputed it as a key suit broke x-0 offside. Reese played on, on fairly straight-forward lines and came to some fancy ending. He wrote something like, “At this point East's best chance was to discard (some card)”.

Kaplan stepped in with an Editor's comment:
“No, East's best chance was to have called the director at the time of the claim. The director would have ruled that the contract was down one”.
Aug. 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 40 B 3:
“The regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question or any irregularity”

I believe the ACBL has elected to disallow such agreements.
Aug. 14, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top