Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Stevenson
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.
I led the A: declarer had Kx. A is safe. The A is safe. The K is safe! Declarer cannot get to dummy so dropped my K. Declarer has stiff K (the old theory of stiff Ks!) and partner has QT over dummy’s J. My partner was not keen on my lead so I said I would poll.
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is obvious that E/W should not be gaining from their MI. Giving E/W the benefit of 4S-1 is just not bridge nor natural justice.

So is South’s play an ESE (not a SEWoG - wrong law book)? I find it difficult to be sure. It is so easy to believe what you are told and suspend thinking. I have voted for 4S-1 but could easily be persuaded that 4S= is correct.
Oct. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A terrible shock. A great help to me in my tournament direction and administration.
Oct. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hmpf. The correct description was not what Matt says that David Burn says, but “No agreement”. If they are going to have a complete blind spot why should it be any different?
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since about 98+% play it as a Sputnik or Negative double in the first situation, and about 95+% in the second case, no, they never ask. Try a poll hare and see how people play these doubles.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
N/S play 2D 2S 3S as 1=4=4=4 18+ and unbelievably think that changes when someone sticks in a takeout double. Unless they are complete beginners who would not be playing the Multi one thing is certain: the alleged MI had no effect on their bidding. It was merely complete and utter incompetence. I would definitely let N/S keep their score.

How about E/W? Ok, how many of us believe East who said his double of 2S was for takeout but he doubled anyway? None? I am surprised!

Since E/W seem to have misinformed N/S since the double was not just takeout (the only unalertable meaning) and their argument smacks of something nasty, let’s give them a PP of 6 imps and move on.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is horrible and one of the very few reasons I dislike playing in Scotland. Fortunately the advantages of playing there are sufficient. I hate gaining from opponents who do not ask 1S (2H) x and do not realise it shows clubs, or 1C (1D) x which shows hearts. There is some case for such a rule after the first round.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The best reason for the presumption that a double of a 2S response which is pass or correct is not alertable if it is takeout is based on the following:

That is what everyone assumes.
That is what everyone played.
That is everyone’s understanding.

Ok, ok, it should be ‘everyone’ which actually means 90% or so.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Their approach to doubles is unhelpful to say the least. When I play at Peebles 1S (2H) X will show clubs and will not be alertable.

But I think people expect natural bids to have one non-alertable meaning and this is very very often not the case. In nearly every jurisdiction 1S (2H) 3S is not alertable whether limit or preemptive. When a player opens 1H it is not alertable whether limited by playing a strong 1C or not. In general natural bids are only alertable if their meaning would be a total surprise. The way bidding is evolving I expect 1M (P) 3M to become non-alertable in all jurisdictions soon even if preemptive.
Sept. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I understand the confusion. Yes, it still looks like my post but I can see how it could have been intended as your post.

I was surprised at the SBU treatment. While it does not mention 1M 3M specifically it does say specifically that 1m 3m preemptive is not alertable and I cannot believe the major would be different. I expect I shall still alert it when I play at Peebles.

The thing about several jurisdictions including Scotland is that the WBF has decided on alerting rules (and system rules as well) designed specifically for international level competition. However a number of countries including Scotland have then accepted them for their own use. The reason I say the SBU are clear on this sequence while the WBF and EBL are not is that while the SBU uses WBF/EBL alerting they also have added a few comments and 1m 3m weak is one of them.
Sept. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What looks like a sarcastic post? Why? If you are referring to my post I think that is unnecessarily offensive. It is not my fault how the alert regulations are written. I would change certain alert regulations in every RA I mentioned if I had my chance.

All the same I still cannot see how on earth you find my post sarcastic rather than factual. Perhaps you could explain.
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are correct that some RAs are vague. I can only answer for the EBU, WBU, CBAI and ACBL where preemptive jump raises are alertable without question because the regulations say so, also the SBU where they are not. I agree that NIBU, EBL and WBF regulations are not so clear and certainly I am not sure of other RAs.
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I seem to have posted simultaneously with John Adams. Fortunately we seem to be in agreement!
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An interesting assumption. I play simple 2/1 GF, I play Acol, I play Polish type club and I play Acol with a 5 card spade suit + 2/1 GF in 1st and 2nd.

In all these systems I play 1M - 3M whatever position opens as preemptive and in none of them do I play Drury.

Whether 1M - 3M preemptive requires an alert is a matter for the Regulating Authority and nothing to do with whether we play Drury nor what players on BW or elsewhere assume everyone plays.
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The question is whether he made the call he did based on the tempo from partner or not.
Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, the bid was made in tempo when he expected her to think first. The effects of her tempo is the information to which he is not entitled.
Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whether her tempo is perfect or not using it in any way is using information that is unauthorised.

Let me put it this way: if she had thought for a while then bid 3S would you have bid 4S? If not then your 4S bid is illegal, and obviously so because it is based on using information that is unauthorised.
Sept. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As would several people. But this was a hand posted on Facebook and I have no idea who it was nor can I find out why not!
Sept. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2D not 1D showed no 4 card major.
Sept. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What is wrong with posting it as a poll? I do not understand the problem!
Sept. 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12 13 14 15
.

Bottom Home Top