Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Brian Davies
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner holds a fistful of clubs, so will pass 2.

But partner would prefer that we pass 2.
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Passing looks timid - particularly at IMPs. I expect partner to have 16+ HCPs or 15 and a good lead. Opps probably have a nine-card heart fit (no penalty pass), so we seem to have a fit in one of the other suits.

Even 4 on a Moysian might be a good spot.
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why not reduce the up-front investment in a copier and simply buy a stock of blank convention cards and two pens.

I'll leave you to calculate how much you want to charge for buying the blank card and for pen rental.
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wouldn't have over-called on the first round.
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I presume that partner has promised a four-card major for this sequence?
March 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“See the discussion What is a ‘convention’? and its outcome.
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/what-is-a-convention/”

Since the majority vote was for: “Convention is any agreement, artificial or natural”, I think that we need to be picking three more fundamental choices. So before we pick Stayman & Transfers (yes - they are separate), we might want select a No Trump range!

And maybe the agreement that a change of suit is forcing?

The selection of a carding convention might also be important!
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael Angelo Ravera: I can't comment on the EBU's Orange Book, since it is many years since that document was superseded.

The Blue book - 4 B 1 (b) has “…a pass or bid must be alerted if it is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning.”

In my opinion, a systematic agreement to over-call 1NT routinely without a stop would definitely be an unexpected meaning and definitely alertable.
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I open 12-14 throughout. I guess that under Christopher's scheme I would announce as weak in first or second chair but strong in third! :)
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Transfers are off if there is further competition.
March 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can make the case that NS did not agree that 3 on this auction is a splinter. But the convention card implies that they have agreed splinters and does not mention that splinters do not apply in this auction so it seems more plausible that they did indeed have an agreement, which North forgot or confused.

In any case, it seems equally clear that they did not have an agreement that 3 is natural, so there should have been an alert. Certainly in England the guidance it pretty clear in this area - you should alert even if you cannot explain the meaning of partner's call (Blue Book 4A4).

I am not sure what the ACBL regulations specify in this area, but what is clear is that under South's understanding of the bid an alert is required, but no alert was given by North. It follows from this that South has UI that North is interpreting the bid differently from the meaning intended by South.

The lack of alert was UI, irrespective of whether it is deemed to be a “failure”!
March 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They missed getting a ruling in their favour.

N/S took improper advantage of UI to allow them to retrieve a bidding misunderstanding. It is debatable whether the “impossible top” arises from the litigation or the bidding misunderstanding.
March 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess that the use of the word damaged in the Poll is unhelpful - since it usually implies that the misinformation has damaged E/W.

But as well as misinformation, there is Unauthorised Information from both the failure to alert and the hesitation. A better poll would be “Should the result be adjusted because N/S did not choose bids which (from Logical alternatives), which were not suggested by the UI”.

In this sense the improper use of UI damaged E/W.
March 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are two sets of UI: the failure to alert and the hesitation before bidding 5. It is seems that passing 5 is not an option without the UI. Why wouldn't North take 5 as a cue-bid in support of ? Without a club control North would bid 5. Now South should take 5 as a second slam try and will be looking for at least a small slam in diamonds. A 6 cue-bid at this stage might be a LA.
March 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, I am not aware of any requirement to disclose the purpose behind a bid. As stated, I choose to play a weak no trump and fully disclose this. I don't feel the need to disclose that one purpose behind our choice of NT range is that it is mildly pre-emptive.

To me, it is a far greater concern that opponents announce, say, 15-17 But don't upgrade and downgrade symmetrically, so their real range is in reality 14-16. Their purpose is their business.
March 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike Ma: “upgrade should not be seat dependent. If someone claims it is good enough to upgrade 3rd seat, then it should be good enough for first seat also.”

Why should your criteria for upgrading / downgrading be the same as mine? I certainly use seating as one factor in considering upgrading or downgrading.

Adjusting in third seat is not unusual for us - but maybe not as you are expecting. We play a 12-14 NT, but I will readily downgrade a poor 15 count in third seat - particularly if red vulnerability at IMPs and we were leading by 30 IMPs at half-way! (Other factors that you may not have considered!).
March 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(1C), 3C Ghestem
Feb. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think he means Principle of Fast Arrival.

I hate having to work out acronyms.
Feb. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is something amusing in Richard ascribing an artificial meaning to a bid that others believe is natural, when it is usually Richard who advocates a natural meaning whenever possible. :)

I'm with Richard on this.
Feb. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wtp 1NT opening for me.
Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whilst we don't have a concept of “pre-alerting” in the UK, this is in effect achieved by exchanging convention cards which should include prominently on page 1 any issues that the opponent's need to prepare for (The Blue Book requires disclosure of “Matters to which special attention should be drawn”).

But this tournament is played under regulations that do not require a pre-alert and do not allow for the exchange of convention cards ahead of play. It would seem that there is a significant gap that is left.

I am not even clear whether competitors are sitting in the same room as each other.
Feb. 19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.

Bottom Home Top