Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eric Kehr
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 26 27 28 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is very common to have the agreement that responder bids on with the higher number of keycards. And if you have that agreement then bidding 5M is a handy way to suggest a grand slam opposite the higher number without making an ask in a specific suit.

It seems harsh to punish a pair for taking a moment to work out whether this particular GST is right on this particular hand.

If a pair claimed to have this agreement, and if the RKB bidder had a hand which might make 7 opposite the higher number, 5hen I would tend to believe them even if it weren’t documented.
3 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is Parkinson’s Law of Triviality.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You misunderstand my point. Why is remembering the contract different to remembering what East discarded on the third trump, five tricks ago, for instance?

My personal feeling is that either you should be allowed to ask about both or neither. And if you want to be nice to your opponents (and there’s nothing wrong with that) you should be equally happy to answer either of those questions.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why is anybody ever allowed to ask what the contract is?

Either memory aids should be allowed or they shouldn't. And getting someone to tell you something is a huge memory aid.

If we think being able to remember such things as the individual bids made, or the cards which have been played, are an essential part of competitive bridge, why isn't having to remember the contract also considered essential?

OK. I know one possible answer to this is “Because that's what the laws say”. But presumably there's a reason that they say this.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are you saying that if an accurate count signal is unlikely to help partner then you should give an inaccurate count signal, or you should just play a random card (which will sometimes happen to coincide with an accurate count signal and sometimes will not)?

And how do you explain your signals to the opposition? Especially in the former case where you might know partner does not want to give accurate count, so you actually can work out their count.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unless, for some reason, you are unable to invest any effort into improving at miniature golf, then I would say your lack of action in this direction shows that you don’t really want to learn and the be the best you can be at it.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As chess master Siegbert Tarrasch said “it’s not enough to be a good player; you must also play well”
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are many thousands of ways one could adapt Bridge scoring and still keep the “essence” of the game the same. Some of these will make for a more enjoyable overall experience than others. It seems incredibly unlikely that a scoring system designed for rubber Bridge and grafted onto duplicate bridge is the best one possible.

But status quo bias is a huge thing, and any change, however well thought out, is likely to be opposed by a sizeable portion of the community.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You think it is great for people to be rewarded for inherently risky actions.

This change makes those actions more risky, which makes them more impressive when people do them, not less.

I’m not particularly impressed by those actions from the old days, because they are not actually as risky as they appear at first glance.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don’t agree you need a trump stack to make a penalty double. A 3550 hand with say AQT in would be a fine penalty double. Especially if west had already shown the sort of hand which could make a penalty double of 3.

Not that either of those things really apply to this particular hand.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And possibly on the denomination and level of the contract.

It is a little ridiculous that a pair who has the temerity to try to play in 1 vulnerable risks losing 200 in their attempt to gain 70.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the old days, all doubles were penalties, which was a terrible idea but at least everybody knew what they meant.

Nowadays double can signify anything and nobody, including the person making them, knows what they mean.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Absolutely.

If they also stipulated that when calling a card from dummy you have to designate a rank and suit; and when making a claim you have to make a statement, then we could turn this website into a place where bridge is discussed.
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don’t think they go far enough.

It’s still too easy to just bid a NV 4 over the opponents’ V 4. Where’s the skill in that?
April 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David how is this different from
If the opponents' bidding starts 1 1 an option I have is to bid 1

Now they tell me he can correct it to 1 before I get a chance.

i.e. why does the *insufficiency* of the unintended call matter?

If your complaint is really with the very fact that unintended calls are allowed to be replaced, then I'd probably agree with you.

I don't know the history of the laws, but was this rule brought in only after bidding boxes were introduced? i.e. Because they tried to do something new, and because a load of old fuddy-duddies moaned that they had got a bad result which wouldn't have happened “in the good old days”, they introduced various fudges.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To expand on my earlier comment.

Law 25 allows you to replace an unintended legal call. So even if Law 27 applies first (and thus makes the insufficient bid legal), we can still apply law 25, can't we?
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's obviously Law 25.

But it does remind me a little of the joke at the top of this page:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/151782/when-is-something-obvious
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Imagine EW were playing a more conservative opening style, and also imagine West's Q were swapped for one of East's small s.

There is no way West would jump to game here and yet they are essentially in the same situation.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But it doesn't say “A player may not attempt to conceal *their own* infraction…”

It could be argued that letting partner put his hand away when you know there has been an infraction is “an attempt to conceal an infraction”.
April 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes. But most claimers don't claim this early. i.e. they do wait until there's no play left (sometimes even a few tricks beyond that).
April 14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 26 27 28 29
.

Bottom Home Top