Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eduard Velecky
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael: “But certainly you will accept that this kind of discussion (remorse, etc) is not constructive.

I don't know what that means, But I have long since accepted that no part of your argument with me rates to be constructive. You don't want to learn anything.”

I repeat last sentence: You dont want to learn anything. This is typical argumentum_ad_hominem. You use this style frequently. For me this kind discusion is not constructive.

In my opinion bridge is a game where people constantly learn. Good bridge player is composed from thousands little knowledge.

Btw: I never use in this discusion word “egregious”. Argumentation with this word is straw man argumentation.

I use once word serious, I cite: South did not double 4♥ with his “long” suit. This is serious error.

I will correct this statement: pass after 4 is error. Am I learning now :D?
July 2, 2019
Eduard Velecky edited this comment July 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Francis, you ask about my system notes and my “universe”.

I play two different systems. One from this is based on expert 2/1. My notes propably also have over 100 pages.

Expert 2/1 includes mini Multi. Last version mini Multi is dated from april 2019. Following the description of the bidding sequences system notes recommend as point 1:

1. The opener IS OBLIGED to show his color if he is able to do so. For example, if you open 2 with x, J10xxxx, Axx, QJx, and your opponents bid the hearts and you have ability to double this contract, it is COMPULSORY double. If it does not, it exposes the partner to assume he has spades and reaches for some nonsensical defense. (Original use bold, not capitals).

My “universe” is based on my experiences. These experiences are also highly confirmed by this deal.
July 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael: “Which remarks, that would be appropriate for me to answer, did I not answer?”

For example you have no answer to my prior QUESTIONS:

—-
Links: https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?s=SJ3HQJT84DT5CQT87&w=SA64HA9732DAJ732C&n=S9872HDKQ984CA953&e=SKQT5HK65D6CKJ642&d=s&v=o&b=11&a=2D2HP4HPPP

Let's take it as a reality. In last position you pass or bid 4?


Maybe my question is for you not appropiate for answer. Maybe you have other reason. I dont know.

But certainly you will accept that this kind of discussion (remorse, etc) is not constructive.
July 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course, I'm curious about others opinion. I'm not interested in self-presentation. The conversation (in a foreign language) is difficult for me and requires a lot of time. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to defend my view.

Btw: And do you know my opinion? I have doubts. Please describe my opinion.
July 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I twice reffered this ruling. Thanks for your detailed and interesant explanation.

In my opinion reffered deal is exceptionally similar.

I cite point 7 from rulling. If East did not double 4 (because of the risk that they might be able to get to a better spot) then it seems that West would now bid 4: this auction would appear to clarify which side holds which major suit, and a West who bid 4 on the actual auction would surely be keen to bid on over an undoubled 4.

I cite from point 8: West’s 4 on the actual auction does seem to be gambling…

In our deal West is exactly in same situation. Same situation need same solution.
July 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael: Michael, I think you haven't answered some of my remarks too. I think I understand MI.

I guess you repeatedly looking for a my personal dimension with this deal or players. That is funny. This is an old deal. This deal is not even from Slovakia. Propably only East remember this deal. Our discussion won't change anything. South is a great player with high ethical standard. But I would play this deal differently.

This kind of discussion doesn't make sense to me. Thank you for the time you gave me.
July 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael: “Isn't pushing the opponents out of 4♥ (down one) into 4N (making - perhaps doubled) a pretty big loss? ”

If this happen (I. 4nt is tought contract II. suprice news from East player: on the other table is result 3nt one down), then I lost my opportunity to profit. Deal is propably arround a draw.

If South pass and N bid 4, then NS loss is min 15 imps. If South use “irrelevant”redouble, then NS loss is min 21 IMPs.


———-

One “general” question, Michael.


In this deal South open light and atypical multi with only 5cards major and 4cards minor. It may look far out and strongly prefer destructive advantage. We say this is bridge today. Then S passed opponents game contract in his long major. We say this is right. After this S redouble 4pades. We say this is irrelevant. Then NS found out that opponents were not alert one bid, so they called the director (ruling is 4 one down, jury on event ruling 4 tree down and deposit forfeited).

This is bridge which we wish play? Do you think such a situation makes bridge an attractive game? Some experts understand the logic of this situation, but most most of the average player are with these and similar decision outraged and disgusted.
July 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Result at the other table is 3nt one down.
July 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ronald, I dont understand your question.
July 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, one more aspect to consider. As you very good know, it is a good expert bidding strategy to not allow high turnover in critical situations. For example, in a high level competetive bidding. If player have two sensible choices, it is better to choose one that doesn't a big turn.

If I strongly prefer double with South cards after 4, then in my opinion I follow these strategy. Double can't usually turn a big turn. Maybe I won't win this deal, but my loss is not big. In contrast no double mean potential misunderstanding. And misunderstaning = propably big loss in this deal.
July 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm sorry, but I don't know the result at the other table.

It's a deal from 2006, I didn't play this deal. I have two documentation of the jury's decision (two different jury decided on the deal), but documentation dont contains the result at the other table.

I contacted East, I hope he finds the result somewhere.

Btw: deal was played by players with good internacional level. Normal contract is 3nt, made. But this is bridge: D.
July 1, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit, you know the result: -3400. For every competent player this result is unacceptable.

Of course, the problem is what caused this result.

Inadvertently omitted alert or bidding error.

Or both. The last option is my opinion.
June 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael: tip usually comes from logic. Please do not ask me for the exact language. Let's not play with words. My English is very far from enough and I have to count on the kindness of the readers.

I too play pass or correct after 2 :).

Links: https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?s=SJ3HQJT84DT5CQT87&w=SA64HA9732DAJ732C&n=S9872HDKQ984CA953&e=SKQT5HK65D6CKJ642&d=s&v=o&b=11&a=2D2HP4HPPP


Let's take it as a reality. In last position you pass or bid 4?
June 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, I'm sorry, but there's nothing new in your arguments. We turn in a circle.

I'll try it differently. Bridge is a game where the player have rights and duties. Some of the duties are not pleasant, but players must fulfill them.

For example, if you open 1 with sub minimum, you must rebid after forcing responce. This is the result of your opening. Our deal is principaly same situation. If you open multi with 5cards, you MUST clear situation. If you open with long hearts, you must double 4 (2 or 3 too), this is your duty. If you pass, then you show other major. This is a clear and inexorably logic.

Double is maybe sometime not good, but this is LESS EVIL than pass. If you prefer pass after 4, this is not bridge, this is sort of conspiration: I must pass, because I can't defeat “possibly” grand slam in spades or diamonds.

In other words: if the player does not have the courage double contract in his color, then lets not open bidding with multi.
June 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, I repeat my key: for me the key is that South didn't double 4.

To your last sentence: please, do not seek personal reasons for different opinion. I dont wanted any result. I am not a member of any participating team. I didn't play on this event. On both sides played a players to which I have a friendly relationship.
June 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, 4 set the suit.

But maybe N was change his opinion. Reason: weak hearts.
Then the hearts suits set was only temporaly.

Is this possible :)?
June 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, your key and my key is diferent…. I repeat myself :): for me the key is that South didn't double 4. Why? If he normally double 4 with his long suit, he gets not only reasonable score, but very good score.

For change I repeat now this: in EBU Appeals Booklets 2015 is very very similar deal, see APPEAL No : 15.017
Link: https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/appeals/EBU-appeals-2015.pdf

Did you see it? Of course, the decision of the EBU appeal commission is not holy or an precedent, but the similarity to our case is remarkable.
June 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael: “Redouble is irrelevant. Since it did not materially affect the NS result. If NS were damaged then (almost) none of the damage was caused by the redouble.”

(Netto) diference between 1700 and 3400 is 5 IMPs.

Lets take simple hypotetical example.

(Huffing) South after 4 bid 7 and again redoubled after oponents double. Diference between 3400 and 4000 is now only 2 IMPs.

With your access South bidding is irrelevant: since it did not materially affect the NS result.

You agree?

BTW: if we're not talking about East's mistake, who forgot the meaning of the 2, then critical damage is South pass after 4, not South bidding after 4.
June 30, 2019
Eduard Velecky edited this comment June 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my universe, there's an automatic double in this situation.

The opening of the 2 usually shows unknow major suit (6-11 HCP). Multi is technically a brown sticker convention (since no long suit is initially known).

The goal of the bidding is to find information about partner hand. Not to conceal information. Hiding information denies major sense bridge: information change beetwen partners. Hidding information after use brown sticker convention is imho absurd.

I remember a number of deals in which the failure to put double in a similar situation has led to a catastrophic result. Imho, risk from driving the opponents to something they can make exist, but this is not statistically considerable threat.

My tip is very simple: if you open multi and oponents decide to play in your color, clear the situation up with use red card.
June 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do not know exactly. I was neither director or player in this deal. It's an old deal from year 2006, but I hope, it's interesting.
June 29, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top