Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eduard Velecky
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my world 2N-4 is Gerber, but 1/1-1/1-2N-4 no.
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Example from Tips on bidding from M. Lawrence.

West open 1, East 1, West 1. What now with A1032 AK73 Q984 6?

Bid 4. You can splinter in a suit already bid by your side. This one requires you to have good understandings. If partner misreads your bid… trouble. Why splinter in partner’s suit? If partner has the right hand, the splinter may be the key to a slam. Give partner a hand with nothing wasted in clubs, like this one: KQ94 Q8 AK 97543.

Rule: Splinter are usually more efective and cooperative than Gerber and they really help players know what to do.
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bridge World Standard: “ with either four-four in the minors or four diamonds, five clubs and a minimum-range hand, use judgment to decide which minor to open”.
Aug. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's just a note: part I (pdf version), page 38-40.
July 31
Eduard Velecky edited this comment July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
"We are not talking about raising on three with an outside doubleton, but with an outside singleton.

I noticed. I just add more information on this topic from another (but similar) point of view, see Weinstein's article.
July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some remarks about 2/1 style and “Robson style”:

Max Hardy in Two Over One Game Force

When opener has a minimum opening bid values and four cards in responders suit, he will raise the major to the two level. Some partnership also raise whne they hold three cards to an honor in responders major and weak doubleton elsewhere in hand.

The choice between raising with three cards and rebiding one notrump is strictly matter of style. System purist continue with 1nt as an expresion of size and shape…In uncontested auctions the need to show a three cards fit has no urgency. When responder has a 5 cards major and partner rebid one notrump, responder cant opt for rebid his suit (and ending auction for his side) or with more values he can use new minor forcing or two way checkback to discover 5-3 fit.

————————————-

“Robson style” main characteristic is always “support with support”. See Partnership Bidding at Bridge, Robson+Seagal.

When you raise semi-frequently on 3 card support you will need methods to discern whether you are in an 8-card fit should you press on to game. For example Steve Weinstein:

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/1m-1m-now-what/
July 31
Eduard Velecky edited this comment July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some word about “Martens style”:

If we open 1 with 11-15, then

a/ opener 1 - responder 1 - opener 2 mean cca 11-15PC, 5clubs+4diamonds

b/ opener 1 - responder 1 - opener 3 mean cca 16-20PC, 5clubs+4diamonds

Disadvantage: range 16-20 PC is too big and we lost bidding space.

In contrast, Martens style advantage is:
a/ opener 1 - responder 1 - opener 2 mean cca 16-17PC, 5clubs+4diamonds
b/ opener 1 - responder 1 - opener 3 mean cca 18-20PC, 5clubs+4diamonds

We have more bidding space and more accurate points estimation.
July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Ian,

some words about “L. Cohen style”:

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/lc-standard-minor-openings/
July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Really nice, thx for sharing.
July 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my word 1m-1M-2nt-4/4 is self-splinter.
July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Majority decide, in this case qualified majority must decide. Not a minority. I dont know practice in other law where one vote from five is enough to decide.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From Law 16 - AUTHORIZED AND UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION

A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select.


Now what is a significant proportion? The laws do not specify, but the TD should assume that it is at least one player in five. (EBU White Book)

One from five? That is funny. Why?

The results of poll often depend on the players chosen. The result is quite random. And not only that: the same player will change the view when poll is repeated after a time (I tested this, one from four usualy change his opinion). Result: the whole process is subjective.

And just one of the five players decided about LA. This condition must be markedly stronger. Not one from five, but four from five.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have many years experience playing against a strong pass. Partnerships playing against strong pass system or against brown sticker must have defined defensive methods for handling many not clear situations. This is what everyone knows. But less is known that this is true for the offensive line too. If anybody play strong pass, for example No name system from L. Slawinski, then 1 opening mean 8–12PC, and 0–2 or 6+ hearts. The responder (sometimes with relays, sometimes no) guesses the opener’s distribution and bids based on this. But if ops bid hearts, then opener is obliged use double.

———————

Some words about Multi. I like Multi. With Multi I have more chance deprive opponents bidding space. But Multi is brown stickers. Other BS is disabled, Multi not. Because it is popular. This is only populist argument. I think Multi need to be banned from using than other BS.

Good BSC discusion is here:
https://chrisryall.net/bridge/debates/brown-sticker.htm
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Title of the post does not fit my purpose. The more precise name would be How destroy bridge or How we kill our game.

But this is provocative, so I chose neutral title How are you vote. And in the discussion I dont hide my opinion.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In this moment for table result stands.: 47 votes,(36%) and
roll back to 4♥ minus 65 votes (50%).

In the end, it doesn't matter how I call a pass for a 4-heart. It is much more important that changes results of the table must be unambiguous and undeniable. I don't think this was such a situation and roughly half of the players who vote in poll see it the same way.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some next information.

World class player at the other table had also removed 4X to 5. Result is one down after lead A. I remember this: bidding at other table is really similar, but meaning is maybe different.

If result stay, nobodies win 12 IMPs. If result is changed, they lost 10 IMPs. Difference is 22 IMPs. This brutal hit into match must have clear and not speculative justification on behalf of the higher goal.

Results at other matchs is really diferent. 3x made or 3nt (S) made or 2NT tree down. 3 made four, 6 two down. 5x made or two down. But 5 is the most frequently contract.
July 7
Eduard Velecky edited this comment July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nobody? Are you sure? For example:

" If it's possible for North to pull, what that means is that this is an extremely tempo-sensitive situation. Don't think 45 seconds to a minute in an extremely tempo-sensitive situation. Don't. Just don't. Or, if you do, don't expect much sympathy when partner pulls.“

Sorry, but average player dont think in ”extreme sensitive" situation?

Both N and S did nothing wrong. In the interpretation of the rules, however, there is an obsession with misuse of UI. It is often like a hunt for a witch.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Deal is from old European team championship. NS is “nobody”, EW are world class players. East called the director (btw: with is name :)) when the tray came back with x over 4♠.
My comment: typical presumption of guilt.

Director ruled that there had been a break in tempo. He asked a number of players, most of whom would have bid 5 straight over 4. When asked to pass at that turn, some would also pass over the double. Director also established, from the players, what the hesitation showed: a good hand, but only in hearts and clubs. Director saw some problems for the play of 4, but decided West would probably find the Q and make 10 tricks.

Ruling: score adjusted to 4 by West, making 10 tricks, NS -590.

NS appelead. The jury (two members from WBF laws comittee, other with similar high qualification) judges that the UI does not demonstrably suggests one LA (5) over another (pass). Original table result restored.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some words about South BIT. Many situations average player do not solve automatically as a world class player. He look for solution at the table, sometimes at the cost of losing their time. Sometimes he make bad decisions. Therefore, he is non-professional player, he is not world class. However, this does not mean he is want to cheat or use UI.

So what was wrong with player as South? Nothing. He was wanting to play well and was need time for his bid.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, I don't understand your attitude. But I'll respect him.

My last note: point A summarizes the EBL jury's opinion on this UI case.
July 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
.

Bottom Home Top