Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eric Dong
1 2 3 4 5 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
yes something like AKQxxx with any shape I would bid 4 over 3
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One note for 1. is that N is likely to be not very long in , usually 5-bad6(4 if feeling lucky) because with good 6+ it is probably automatic 4 over 3. So with a 5-5 hand, if my hand was not good to bid 4 over 3 earlier, I am happy to bid 4 over 4, but I don't really promise another 5 card suit.
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
probably 4 over 3 to show 5-5? If hand is too weak I guess your options are limited.
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. Sacrifice
2. Penalty
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Solely based on partnership agreement on this particular set of vulnerability.
I assume most people don't like the idea of jumping 3 with super weak hands at vulnerable, hence the poll result. But I don't think agreeing on jumping 3 with this hand is insane.
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know. My point is that the current law is not optimal. Also, a record like what I mentioned is not necessarily a punishment.

Under current laws I fully agree with the ruling. I just don’t like the implication of this case.

Think the analogy as,
Running red light hurts the social order and cause potential physical harm to you and others.
Misbid/MI hurts players’ enjoyment of bridge (basically the board played is no longer normal bridge) and cause potential damage to you and others in terms of scoring.

Red light should compared to the system instead of the law.
Nov. 18
Eric Dong edited this comment Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perfect ruling… In the world of bridge.

It's fascinating how S gets no consequence when it is clearly (or 99% likely) that s/he forgot s/he's playing 5-card stayman, all because that EW are deemed not damaged because a lead is almost impossible.

Well, a lead is almost impossible but maybe there is a non-zero chance that W makes an inspired lead with correct information? “Well it's almost 0 chance so we just approximate it to 0.”

It's like driving a car and running the red light. Should a person get ticketed and demerit points if s/he ran a red light but did not hurt anyone?

This MI situation probably did not hurt EW but I believe that MI should get at least noted on records, if not punished. I suggest there should be a misbid/MI/psyche record for every registered bridge player and opponents are allowed to report such incidences of the player. Each player would then have a statistic like “% of boards with misbid/MI/psyche” and this statistic should be available for the opponents to see. Note this is not a moral score, but merely a statistical method to allow better information coverage and would be a step towards “full-disclosure”.

This would be comparable to online poker where you can gather data of other players in terms of 3-bet%, 4-bet%, Cbet%, Win% at showdown, etc. Which is again, not a moral score.
Nov. 18
Eric Dong edited this comment Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
deleted
Nov. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would love to play this as takeout but without prior discussion this has to be penalty.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At matchpoint balancing position.
Oct. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
declarer had AQ though (OP mentioned playing x from dummy), I think declarer can play Q and take it back and then play the A, and claim that he mispulled. It's not good practice but if a championship is on the line I would do it.

if AQ is on the dummy, declarer can claim that he called the correct card but dummy played wrong, especially if the room is noisy sometimes.
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
pretty sure declarer is allowed to correct his play if he realizes it fast enough.
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Might as well bid 4 if you have a 3.5 bid.
For me, slow 3 demonstrates 2.5 and suggests S to pass. However 4 is LA, hence S bidding 4 is very ethical.
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing forcing pass over 3, I play X as optional penalty. N with strong interest in penalty would have to pass 3. Therefore, S with shortness in facing 3X would decline penalty and bid 3. Serious partnerships need to have discussions on these situations. I would blame this board on the lack of discussion by partnership.
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Obligatory why is this not a bidding poll
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Surely 2NT then 4 has to be a void right? jumping to 5 seems excessive
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Any possibility that EW can get a 4 ruling? I see a possible 4 jump over X of 2 by W. With W's real hand and correct explanation on 2, W who has 5-3-4-1 with a singleton and presumably E is short in might just jump to 4 over 3?
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No way 4 would deny control. Some play 4 as last train and some play 4 as having control and looking for control.

Either way, 4 shows control, and 4 denies control.

Therefore, it is totally normal for the pair to miss AK in , and 4 conveys that information. If responder decides to bid 6 and it makes under a lead, then it cannot stand.

Unless the hesitation was made by opponents instead of the 2 opener of course.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why? because you forget to bring a deck of cards but everyone has their phone/tablets?
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What I am thinking of is saving up sequences so I can play 1M - 3m as natural invitational or fit jump. Combining GF and inv sequences would definitely have some sort of negative impact even if we could minimize it, because the bid is now less clearly defined. But is the alternative worth it?
Oct. 10
1 2 3 4 5 6
.

Bottom Home Top