Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Craig Biddle
1 2 3 4 ... 30 31 32 33
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or in English a steppingstone squeeze.
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Merficually? Another strange choice, but this one is correctable. (Bd 12)
Aug. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My auction would start 1-1 (hearts) 1 (weak NT without 4, or 3 in an unbalanced 11-16)-2 (GF art), 2 (4 indeterminate heart length, could be 4=2=(43))-2NT (asking), 3 (real clubs, thus 4=3=1=5 or thereabouts) and we have oodles of room for further investigation.

We had a similar auction today at the club with KQxx Jxx AJx Kxx opposite AJxx AQ10x 108xx A but fizzled out at 5 when we realized we needed to find the K. Unfortunately I failed to realize that, once in 5, I might as well bid 6 since 5 could go down on a lead if partner didn't have the J.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What is so complicated about “more quick tricks than losers”? Or even “as many quick tricks as losers”. Yes the latter phrase would make void void Qxx AK98xxxxx a legal 2 opening, but I think saying “22 points on K&R evaluation scale” would be a little tough to legislate.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whenever the slope of VP's vs. IMP margin decreases (you need to gain more IMPs to get the next VP than you did to get the previous one) you have the same issue. The whole purpose of the WBF VP scale is to minimize the local discontinuities of IMPs vs. VP's.

Suppose you have a VP scale where you earn 0.5 VP for each IMP up to a certain number (X), and then 0.2 VP for each remaining IMP. Inevitably, there will be situations where the players know or suspect that the margin in the match is X.

At that point, the VP odds for the trailing team to bid a slam are 5:2 in their favor and the VP odds on a vulnerable grand slam, instead of 17:13 against, are 6.5:3.4 in their favor. The

The point about continuing to debit the trailing team for losing more than the blitz margin is a good one, though, and easily implemented.

For grins, with the current WBF chart, these are the odds you need to bid, respectively, a vul grand, a NV grand, a vul slam, a NV slam, a vul game, and a NV game, for various estimated margins in your match.

-40 00% across the board (no further penalty for losing IMPs)
-30 33% 38% 33% 33% 31% 41%
-20 43% 45% 38% 38% 31% 40%
-10 42% 45% 38% 38% 31% 40%
000 55% 55% 50% 50% 39% 46%
+10 67% 66% 61% 61% 44% 50%
+20 69% 67% 62% 62% 45% 51%
+30 74% 69% 67% 67% 45% 50$

In the example I gave, the required odds on bidding a vul grand at the inflection point are about 35%, a vul game about 20%, and a NV game about 25%. I think the current WBF chart is awfully good, but it could be improved by penalizing the losing team .08 VP per additional IMP beyond 40 without rewarding the winners. This would stabilize the VP odds on most contracts at about the -20 level, which seems acceptable.
Aug. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You probably weren't playing when EHAA was all the rage. But you may remember the gigantic flap in the WC a few years ago when Spain refused to play against Bathurst-Lall because of their penchant for opening a Precision 1 on very minimal values.

People have a right to prepare for anything they might encounter. In a typical matchpoint game with new opponents every 2 or 3 boards, allowing “anything” would likely drive down attendance, and the ACBL is having enough problems finding new members anyway.

The forthcoming convention regulations address this in a realistic fashion, with more complexity allowed as the skill level of the players and/or the number of boards to be played against your opponents in one round increase. The WBF gives its NCBO's the right to roll their own rules on allowed methods, and expects each of them to use that to the benefit of their membership.

This reminds me of the smoking issue of the early 80's. Guess what? The wishes of the majority won out there, too.
Aug. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And if partner does ruff my heroic underlead and gives me a ruff, might I not be endplayed into giving up the game-going trick in diamonds?
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For the purposes of this poll, assume DFPS is DEPO if you are 0314 and DOPE if you are 1430.
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Someone articulates one of the points I am interested in. The other of course, is whether people change the parity shown by the first step after interference.
Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 should be a good 4=3=1=5 with good hearts, willing to play a 4-3.
Aug. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I rebid 2NT with xxx, partner can simply raise to 3NT with xxx also. Who has 5 good hearts when the bidding starts 1-1?

With 4=3=3=3 I would have rebid 1NT even without discussion. With 4=2=3=4 I bid 3. With 4=x=x=5 I rebid 2. With 4=x=x=6 I rebid 3. With 5=x=x=6 I rebid 3 with a bad hand and rebid 2 and later bid a black suit uninvited with a good hand. What's the problem?
Aug. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You ever hear of a guy named Hamman? I think actuaries can safely be described as mathematicians.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are all assuming that, after an irregular pass is withdrawn, the person who committed the irregularity is forbidden from making any call which might, without the irregularity, show any hand that is not contained within the hands that would have been shown by the withdrawn call. I find no basis for this within the cited sections of the rules, and I therefore challenge that assumption.

If I pass out of turn, and partner opens the bidding, what Law 23 says to me is that I MAY NOT adjust the meaning of any call which would have guaranteed opening bid values to its passed hand status. I believe that I am allowed to make any call, without penalty, as long as that call would more often than not be made with a hand that would not open the bidding. And a 1 response certainly fits that description.

Nowhere do the Laws say that the subset of my allowable responses after an irregular pass must be entirely contained within the subset of the hands where I would have legally passed. If they had wanted us to interpret that Law in that manner, the last word of Law 23 A 1 would be AND, not OR. A 1 response in the example situation does indeed define a subset of the possible meanings attributable to my withdrawn call. As long as it does that, it does not have to satisfy EITHER Law 23 A 1 OR Law 23 A 3.

And the provisions of Law 16 B provide the Director with adequate authority to adjust the result of the board if opener does something such as passing the response with a dead minimum balanced hand and a fit.

Do not confuse this with a superficially similar situation such as an opening 2 out of turn that shows 6-10 with 5+ and 4+ in a minor. If this call is withdrawn, and opener bids 1, responder is NOT allowed to simply bid 2 of his minor since a 2m response to 1 normally does not show 5 and a weak hand. But a 1 response would be allowed, and the auction 1-1, 2-2 would be disallowed in most methods.

Another forbidden situation would be an opening bid of 1NT (10-12) out of turn. Once that happens, and is withdrawn, if partner opens the bidding this hand is severely constrained. It could not, for example, respond with a single raise of a major opening or respond 1NT not forcing to a minor suit opening.

The difference that I see in these three disparate situations is that the opening pass out of turn would be normal with anything from 50-65% of your possible hands, while the openings in the other two cases convey either very specific distributional information and a minority of possible HCP holdings or a very limited HCP range and a restricted list of possible distributions.

In essence, I think that as long as the call I choose to make after an opening pass has a relatively large overlap between what my call would show without the pass then it should be allowed.
Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think your interpretation of this law is overly literal. For another example, suppose I have a normal 15-17 1NT opening and partner passes out of turn. The intent of this law is clearly (to me, anyway) to allow me to simply open 1NT and allow us to have a normal auction. But according to your interpretation, any bid that partner might make (Stayman, transfer, etc.) is barred if partner would make that same call with opening bid values. Worse, your interpretation allows partner to bid 2 TO PLAY since according to your interpretation I must pass.

I think 1-1 must be allowed in your example with no further penalty, since it “defines a subset” of hands that would pass originally, e.g. 5-11 HCP with 4+ and fewer than 5. The fact that my 1 response as an unpassed hand ALSO includes stronger such hands is irrelevant to your example. Also note that the definition of a “comparable call” allows any call that has “the same or similar meaning” or defines a subset of possible meanings of the withdrawn call. Here a 1 response is clearly defining a subset of initial passes.

The subsidiary laws are intended to make sure that opener does not take advantage of the UI of the pass by:

1. Opening 1 of a minor with anything and then making the pass required by law after partner's response.

2. Opening 1 of a major and then interpreting the response as Drury or any other specialized passed hand method.

3. Passing what is defined in the partnership as a game forcing response.

I have always thought that the current law regarding a pass out of turn is Draconian, and this is obviously an attempt to allow reasonable results after no harm, no foul infractions such as a pass out of turn.
Aug. 7
Craig Biddle edited this comment Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But is that what 3 means? I think it means that I have a control in spades and a great hand for hearts, especially if X would have been takeout. And, from my hand, partner is obviously short in diamonds, so his pattern is likely 5-5 in the rounded suits.

I chose 4 simply because we may have only 10 tricks on some layouts. Jx QJ10xx x AJxxx.

And I totally agree that partner “can't” have 6.
Aug. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner will have a mirror 0 count once in 4900+ hands.

Partner will have a mirror 1 count once in about 3600 hands.

Answer - if you decided to leap to 4 over partner' transfer, you dd the right thing.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Aren't very many people who have one to top this.
Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That was my mental block too!
Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree, just trying to find a line of play that approximates what one would do at the table if possible.
Aug. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think 6 was worst - S failed to cue-bid either red suit. If he skipped showing a red suit first-round control, it's on him.
Aug. 2
1 2 3 4 ... 30 31 32 33
.

Bottom Home Top