Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Brian Callaghan
1 2 3 4 5 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is the downside. The main upside is that the bidding may be at 2NT or 3NT at your next chance.
May 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Depends on what you think the spade bidder should do next (if anything), but at least the 2NT bidders are in with a chance.
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Six solid spades, three small hearts, and two small in each minor. The 3NT bidders would have hit the jackpot.
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, everyone, for voting. The moral of deals like this one, where the auction takes an unusual turn, is probably to try to set out clear partnership guidelines on what delayed bids/doubles show. (The commenters, in the main, are acting, while the majority vote is for pass.)
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 shows a major one-suiter. 3 of a minor shows that minor.
May 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play it similar to the way Frances does. It shows a minimum, so it's not a slam try at all, just leaving room for responder to investigate if still interested (referred to in my notes as “milk train” because it comes first instead of last).
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You never have to agree to disagree.
March 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well done!
March 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well done!
March 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I first started in my local duplicate there was a partnership of two elderly men which neatly sidestepped the problem.

“I double one heart” was penalties; “double” was takeout.
Jan. 30
Brian Callaghan edited this comment Jan. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
System on looks like an OK agreement. It’s not a cure‑all that you can apply to every auction, though. I remember bidding 1NT (without agreement as to its meaning) in an auction that started with the same two bids. Partner gave it mature consideration before passing.
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The opponents’ convention card gives one‑level responses to 1 as: 1= 4+ hearts; 1=4+ spades; 1=no major 6–9 HCP, some other 10+ HCP, or 5 diamonds GF; 1NT=10–12 HCP.

NS have at least a seven‑card heart fit. Opener would have rebid 1NT 11–14 HCP with fewer than three hearts.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That would have been a useful method for this particular hand, but the partnership agreement when the deal came up was that double would just show a diamond suit.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In casual partnerships where I play 4 way transfers I don't have any specific agreements. In partnerships with more detailed agreements I don't play 4 way transfers, but do play that bidding shows a stopper, in an effort not to wrong-side a contract in the suit. I voted for both 2NT and 3 showing a stopper, but that is not the way to right-side a club contract. That would require both a direct and delayed 3(after partner's xx) to show a stopper. I'm coming round to bidding immediately showing a fit (3 fit and stopper, and 2NT fit and no stopper).
Dec. 31, 2017
Brian Callaghan edited this comment Dec. 31, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Resident polymath”—you’ve let the cat out of the bag there, James. All these years I’ve been thinking that David Burn was just a regular guy like the rest of us.
Dec. 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a footnote in the paper that might be significant. It says “One technical detail is that c is generated by assuming that the player who can win more tricks in the contract is the declarer”.

So, if I understand it correctly, the evaluation does not consider right‑siding and wrong‑siding. Could there be a cost to transfer openings that this experiment has not considered? It would be interesting to see if a similar bidding system resulted when accounting for actual side from which a contract is played.
Nov. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The 12-hour events are usually scheduled to run from about 11am to 11pm. I agree it's practically impossible to fit same-day international travel around this.

It's easier to fit travel around the 24-hour event. (A slightly later start and finish would be better from this perspective.)
Nov. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's a case, but there's an admittedly unlikely layout where it would be seriously wrong. Declarer might have KQ doubleton in hearts (as well as a doubleton spade) and dummy three to the ten.
Nov. 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The event ended at eleven. The organisers did not use the clocks going back as an excuse to torture the participants by making them play an extra hour.
Nov. 19, 2017
Brian Callaghan edited this comment Nov. 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I admit I much prefer the 24-hour event.
Nov. 18, 2017
1 2 3 4 5 6
.

Bottom Home Top