Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Dan Wolkowitz
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 15 16 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Ray

Kit said part of what I meant, which is that it wakes up East. The other part is that the requirement that you protect yourself is tough because not every situation is clear. For instance, let's say the auction goes:

1 - (P) - 3

with no alert. This might be natural and invitational, some some of 4-card spade raise, natural and strong, natural and weak, etc. Should you always click on this auction? Perhaps, although in live play I find that I lose whenever the opponents are having a misunderstanding. Opener and responder look at each other, either directly or just sense in the vibrations of each other's bodies what is going on, and they land in the right spot. If I ask nothing, they might still have a problem. This is even more likely to occur after a double by second hand, where someone might not have seen the double or forgotten whether or how their agreements change.

If the auction instead starts:

1 - (P) - 2N* - (P)
3**- ?

*alerted
**not alerted

then I think there's more of an obligation on your part to not assume that opener has diamonds. They made an artificial bid already, this artificial bid has (in the overwhelming majority of iterations) artificial responses of various sorts, and it's far more likely that opener/responder forgot to alert (online/in person) than that they're having a misunderstanding that you'll wake them up for.

In the Drury case, people forget. This happens all the time. Not everyone plays Drury (although most do). Perhaps this case is one where the OP should have asked, but I don't think it's 100%.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This has nothing to do with whether UNDOs are allowed, and a lot to do with the sportsmanship/gamesmanship of the opponents.

They failed to alert. You did everything that was normal. The 4 bid is authorized information to you, I believe, and unauthorized to them. Of course, it's not going to make a ton of difference whether you doubled or Michaelsed over 2 as to whether they bid a game, but in other situations it could be a big deal.

It seems like what happened is that the opponents screwed up, realized they might have given away some information while screwing up, and then hoped they could block you from doing your normal action because you had gotten extra information. You did get extra information, but it was their fault and it's too bad for them (in this case only a little too bad). Claiming that THEY have a right to return to some (very close) equity on the board is crazy and (in my opinion) reflects a certain level of selfishness and gamesmanship on the part of the opponents. Over the years, I've found this type of opponent is unlikely to be a C-level player or a world class player, but very likely to be the kind of person who regularly wins B-level events or weak A-level events at regionals. They use moments like this to intimidate others. They commit an infraction, then threaten to call the cops on the damaged party. I think the jury's still out on whether they should have their dogs taken away from them, but it's close.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's not your obligation to click on the 2 call. You shouldn't have to click on conceivably natural bids to check if they are artificial. This could either wake the opponents up to a misunderstanding by reminding them that one opponent knows a convention sometimes exists in this spot, or it could cause an opponent who plays a natural meaning to question their agreement and go wrong. You should be able to have the confidence to make your calls with the assurance that the opponents have fulfilled their obligations.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
lebensohl 2 also wins when you get to stop in 2M when you have some values and doubler doesn't.
July 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Considering that QTxx was a holding you could pick up, I think it was A82 vs J9654
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe not a great double, but they also saw how the match was going at the time, so perhaps it seemed like it was necessary. It's true that the likely trick given up by the double means you need to really have thought you had chances of setting it three prior to the double, which is a little much…
June 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
UMJOODO?

Ok, it was actually easy to google.I figured it was another name for what I’ve heard called “reverse Flannery” but I can see why a couple of lawyers couldn’t resist using a giant acronym when it was available.
May 23
Dan Wolkowitz edited this comment May 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's tough to have four ranges except over an opening of 1, and even that can get muddied. If you doubled 1 and partner bids 2, what does your 2!N show now? Maybe with 15 you'll just pass, but it gets a little murky.
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought South died in 1997.
April 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Matthew,

I found myself in a very similar situation, also against two world class players, in the 3-day LM pairs in Chicago (summer ‘15). Red/red I held:

AJ
97
JT9643
Q54

I passed in 1st, heard opps bid uncontested 1(2+, <16 high) - 1 - 2 - passed back to me. I figured partner would have some points and was less likely to have five spades since no overcall, so I bid 3. I had been pre-tanking about this, knowing I had decided not to open 2 weak because my suit wasn’t so great and wondering how the auction would go at other tables. I hadn't noticed that my partner had also taken time to pass 2 in the direct seat. I balanced and got much the same reaction from the opponents as you, especially one of them, who also happened to be from your neck of the woods.

I did not challenge them that my partner had hesitated - I merely said that I didn't know he had. “Sure you didn't notice” was their reaction, with a “that's what they all say” thrown in for good measure. What really bothered me was that this person knew me and knew many of my friends. Either they thought I was blatantly lying to them after taking use of UI or they just wanted an edge from putting me on tilt. One thing I do know is that I was furious, insulted and I lost 90+% of the respect I had for that person. As I write this I'm still angry about it.

All they needed to do was to call the director and say, “There was a hesitation.” The same thing was true in your case. Let the referee decide it. In your case at least one of your opponents must know you well enough, and the other one should trust their partner. If they want to call the director, call them. The sarcasm and muttering shouldn't be part of the game at all and should be sanctioned themselves.
April 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/difficult-evaluation/

You wrote about the weak relay two weeks ago (really probably several months ago, or however far ahead you are these days)
March 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let me guess: you doubled at the table, your partner said it was a terrible double, you posted for vindication and retribution?
March 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Technically, timeo (I fear) is the verb. Danaos is the Greeks. Fermented is a present active participle and is an adverb. “I fear the Greeks, even bearing gifts.”
Nov. 14, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I didn't take a ton of Latin, but…

Doesn't “ferentes” meaning “carrying” in this case “bearing”? In that case, I would have thought you meant to write “donum compulsum,” an “obligatory gift” in the body of the article.

Also, then the title of the article would read Non Timeo Danaos Et Dona Ferentes Compulsa (if you want to put the new adjective last for the sake of harmony).

But again, I could be missing something here.

***

Ok, I wrote the above before finishing the article. I experienced self doubt because you're really smart but considering you've never taken Latin, I'm adjusting again. Compulsus is a masculine singular nominative case. Dona is a plural accusative of donum-i (n.) “gift.” You want them to agree, so you need the neuter accusative case of compulsus, which is compulsa. But in the singular, it will be donum compulsum, since there is usually only one Greek Gift per hand.
Nov. 12, 2019
Dan Wolkowitz edited this comment Nov. 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bart Bramley likes to say that people who don’t open 12-counts get very unlucky later in the auction. I wonder how lucky it is to pass a 13-count.
Aug. 22, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Read the title as a news report of a poll
July 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you're confident that spades are 3-2, you might do even better by pitching on the third diamond if East follows. If you get overruffed by Tx you'll only take ten tricks, but if you pitch I think you always make 11.
April 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True. Upper left corner. But it's also not alertable!
March 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I expect partner will pull with a 6-5 hand
Oct. 10, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 15 16 17
.

Bottom Home Top