Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Dan Wolkowitz
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12 13 14 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The easiest thing to do would be to stop after round 1 (or whichever round this was discovered), have each table take their aces of hearts out of each board (without showing which pockets they came out of) and have each table distribute aces of hearts to the properly colored cards at other tables. It would probably have taken about two minutes, and no information would have been shared between tables and everyone putting the aces back would already be authorized to know where they went.
Dec. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Regardless of how the beginning went, at trick 11 East knows that North has no more clubs and no more diamonds. He might have another spade. If not, he has all trumps and West will never gain by ruffing from a 2-card suit into declarer. So the only possibly useful thing to do is to play a spade and hope that partner can ruff it. This works without having to go back and think about the bidding.
Dec. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When given the hand, I described the J from Jx as a play that is only possible from a player who knows enough to consider it but not enough to know that it's crazy.
Dec. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you cash the T, you're afraid when West was 6-1-1-5. When East pitches a club on the fourth diamond, you don't know whether East has Kxx, xxx, or any four clubs and will have to decide at some point whether to finesse the club or play for 4-4 clubs. You should probably play for 4-4 clubs in the case, but you don't need to.

Playing a diamond and forcing an early ruff and ruffing a spade back is equivalent to cashing the heart ten and playing a diamond pitching a spade, on which trick you magically force East to pitch a spade if they have one left. This turns the 5-3 clubs problem into the 4-4 clubs problem.

This is equivalent (on a different hand) to entering dummy to ruff some suit to ensure you create a threat rather than running trumps and allowing the opponents to discard whatever they please.
Dec. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm going to assume we don't have any special agreements such as the one Steve Bloom points out above (partner being able to show shortness below 3 after a 2 signoff) because I would expect that the OP would have specified this. We can't impute our favorite partnership agreements on this situation, nor can we decide who partner is, what their ethics are, etc.

You can always call the director after seeing dummy and playing the hand out. The protection for the opponents will be the same (strain won't change) and you'll actually know what happened. You'll also create maximum damage for an ethical lapse if you bid 4 now, which is what your partner deserves if they did something wrong. Until that point, the best thing you can do is to assume you were playing with robots. Had you bid 2 and the robot made a second (if clumsy) try, you'd bid game. So bid game and look for damages later.

As the 2 bidder, one thing I know for sure is that had I only discussed 3-card and 4-card Drury and no additional passed hand good raises, were my partner to not alert 2, I would bid according to whatever plan I made initially. Presumably when I decided to bid 2 I had a plan if partner bid 2. If my partner decided to mastermind active ethics after 3 because they decided I was either unethical or ignorant, I would either choose to punch them in the face, never play with them again, or both.
Nov. 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The fall (Nail) LM pairs has been two days for a very long time.
Nov. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner also might have played the King from KQJ of diamonds
Nov. 2, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Until reading this post I wasn't aware you could ‘crime’ anyone.
Oct. 31, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You two sound like you're playing different contracts
Oct. 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
His name is actually Bayes (Bayes' theorem). Sorry for being a jerk.
Sept. 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Carol:

Wolff signoff is a convention whereby responder's 3 bid forces opener to bid 3, after which responder can place the contract, either by passing 3 of rebidding their original suit. (There is a question as to whether:
1m - 1
2N - 3
3 - 3
should show hearts and a weak hand or be something else. Either way, continuations of Wolff signoff higher than responder's first suit should certainly be forcing, since there is nowhere else to sign off. Personally, I like:

1m - 1M
2N - 3
3 - ?

3oM (other major): at least a mild slam try in the unopened minor
3N : mild slam try in opener's minor
4 : strong slam try in opener's minor (even if it's diamonds)


Since 3 contains the hands that are either signing off or have given up on playing a major suit fit, 3 is available as a checkback bid for the majors. 3M directly is also available as a forcing 6-card suit, since responder could have signed off by looping through 3-3. You should agree whether after:

1m - 1M
2N - 3
?

opener prioritizes:
a) showing 4 cards in the other major
b) showing 3-card support for responder's major
c) showing a useful number of hearts (3 if responder's suit, 4 if not)

and you should also decide what you think responder's bid of 3oM should be over 2N.
Sept. 3, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whether or not transfers are good, I don't think this comment addresses the OP's question in a way that will help them.
Sept. 3, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think all sessions starting at 1/7 Eastern and converting to whichever time zone the nationals are in (perhaps with an exception if they return to Hawaii) allows everyone to play at a reasonable time even if suffering from jet lag.
Aug. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would Michael have led the Q from Qxx?
Aug. 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 hasn't been bypassed so much as (I think) it would have agreed spades. So you have two choices here: If you play 4 as last train, then sometimes you'll get a little high off a diamond control or stay too low with a perfect hand. If you play 4 as a control, then with extras and 5521 you may have to bid higher than 4 with no control and get high, or you may have problems on the hand Eddie Wold described above. However, you don't have to bid 3 with that hand if you're worried about how the auction might develop. You can start with 2. I think the assumption that the 5-5 slam try opposite a balanced minimum has a control in both suits is pretty reasonable.
Aug. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are (39 choose 13) hands partner can have. If partner is mirrored with you and has 0 points, then there are (9C2) spades * (5C5) hearts * (9C3) diamonds * (7C3) clubs = 36 * 1 * 84 * 35 = 105,840 different hands where partner has suits that meet these restrictions. That makes it 1/76,742.49. It would be 6x more likely if partner were allowed to hold the jack of hearts.
Aug. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think most people lead K from AK or KQ at the 5-level or higher and play that it asks for count.
July 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think in this case, the adjustment could only go one way. The 1 attempt has now forced the overcaller to include more of the weaker hands in their 3 range in order to not bar partner. But it hasn't broadened the upper range of the bid significantly. In other words, the upper limit of 3 and 1 is similar, the lower limits are not, so the corrected bid is on average weaker. Advancer needs to pretend that it is like a normal 3 overcall. Ms. Eason's partners just have to be more careful than others not to bid out of turn, as they will never get a good ruling.
June 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What stops two players from being on the phone and sharing information about hands?
June 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What is “the current CEO's kind of guy” supposed to mean?
May 24, 2017
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12 13 14 15
.

Bottom Home Top