Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Esko Pikataival
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When splitting 2nd hand, the information partner needs is the highest of your split sequence. The correct way to send this message is to agree with your partner what to play when splitting from 2nd hand.

Working solutions:
* play the top card
* play the 2nd highest
* play 0 or 2 higher
* some other deterministic, which tells partner the top card

Bad solution:
* play the lowest from the sequence as this does not tell the highest of your sequence
10 minutes ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was there misinformation? Certainly was in the form of different explanations.

Was there damage? West chose a logical lead after having received misinformation. After that East's train of thought had taken a certain track, which was unlikely to be derailed. The damage came from the lead suggested by the wrong explanation. So the damage was direct consequence of the misinformation and the director should have adjusted to 5 -1.

The director was dead wrong demanding a low club lead. The director was also wrong requiring East to assess as a fact that South would not bid 5 with four clubs.

It looks like the director wanted brag with his bridge skills instead of using the law book.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually the correct technical procedure consists of four questions:

1. Was there UI?
2. Did the UI suggest some action to be more successful over others and was this action taken?
3. Were there logical alternatives to the action taken?
4. Was there damage?

The TD can typically determine the answers to #1, #2, and #4. The poll is typically taken to determine if there were logical alternatives.

The problem in this procedure is that #3 is often very hard, because
1. it's hard to get the relevant information about the methods used and the inferences provided by these methods
2. it's hard to communicate these facts to the pollees
3. it's hard for the pollees to make a context switch to the methods and inferences provided by auction (or defense).
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is something, which needs to be agreed, IMO. In my notes pass by a potential trap passer behind solo XX is defined as penalties.

This is very different from co-operation XX e.g. (1)-X-(XX)-? where pass just suggests that the doubler gets us out of the mess (typically no 5 card suit and often xxx in )
May 27
Esko Pikataival edited this comment May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
All suits break evenly from the perspective of the longest instance of the suit (EW):
spades 4-4
hearts 3-3
diamonds 3-3
clubs 3-3
May 22
Esko Pikataival edited this comment May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
EDITED heavily for too pessimistic initial analysis; morning jog woke up my brains :)

If you take a look at the Fredin hand, there is a perfectly legitimate and technical line to make it.

Win the club and duck a diamond. Win the (say) club return and ruff the club. Cash the A and the A.

At this point the hand is more or less a lock against normalish distributions.

If West ruffs he's either end-played or you can end-play East with a diamond later. If West follows, you continue with a diamond to end-play an opponent. If they play a minor to triple void, you just discard a spade. If East returns a major suit card end-play him with the third trump (You can always strip the spades with the top as an entry to hand).

There are (at least) two tail cases where the line above doesn't work:
a) if East can win two diamonds and push two spades thru and West has three trumps
b) if West has 6 spades and hearts are 2-2

You might be able to sniff out those cases and change tack in the midhand.

Anyway, Fredin went for the ruse, even though the technical line would have been pretty odds-on (and IMO even more probable than the elimination line in my problem hand).

In my problem, playing the Q costs nothing so it cannot be very expensive.

(The meta game related to showing the club length (2) is, of course, interesting. Would I do that with T singleton (ignorant or double bluff)? Would I do that with QT (single bluff or triple bluff)?)
May 5
Esko Pikataival edited this comment May 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Only Chance by Eric Jannersten, Deal 43

Dealer South, love all

K3
97543
987
A97

A2
AKQJT
AK6
T62

1-(4)-p-(p)
X-(p)-5 ap

West leads the Q, dummy plays the K and East discards 8.
May 4
Esko Pikataival edited this comment May 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wasn't discussing the merits of the calls but the justification you made to them. Below is a direct quote:

“My reasoning was that 2♠ could be made with zero points, but 3♣ or double would be free bids and would not be made on zero points.”

The statement above is wrong as the lower limit of 2 is not relevant.

The straw man you created from my comment to disagree with was not there. If you had read the comment to the end, you would have noticed that IMO there was no comparable call available.
April 28
Esko Pikataival edited this comment April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Based on your reply above, you seem to confuse the sets and the subsets. Assume that the range of 2 is 0-13 hcp. If the range of X or 3 would be 7-13 hcp (or even 12-13 hcp) that range would be the subset of the 2 range.

See e.g. http://www.kolumbus.fi/memmu1/piv/bridge/comparable_call.png

Based on the system information given and deducted, I would say that there is no comparable call to 2 as 2 tends to show at least 2 card disparity in the majors (and often real shortness in hearts as responder prefers 3m to 2).
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_space_principle

The idea of using transfers/swaps is not exactly new and is often referenced as USP according to the Jeff Rubens article.
April 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A long time ago I was playing against a pair, which currently isn't welcome to all tournaments viz. AZ and CB. My partner opened a weak NT and I used NF Stayman 2. AZ (my screenmate) doubled and partner redoubled to show clubs. After three passes AZ expecting me to be dummy showed his hand. I tried to look away while telling him that I'm the declarer. The response I got was “Please, don''t tell my partner I showed my hand; he'll kill me”.

Even double dummy, the QT987xx was enough for one down.
April 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Based on 7A3 you need the rule of 18 for 1st/2nd seat SUIT opening and 9hcp with 4432 or 4333 do not satisfy the rule of 18. 7A3 specifically seems to apply to suit openings and 1 is a suit opening even if it is NT surrogate.

Note that 7B1(i)c should state if NT strength requirement applies.
March 31
Esko Pikataival edited this comment March 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RR: AFAIU, I was not suggesting that 3 was the call to be made and if you read my comment just above, you would have noted that I bid 2 in the same position (I happened to play in the same tournament). I was trying to suggest what might have gone in her mind causing the auction to stop too early.

In my 2/1 version, 3 shows solid/semisolid suit.
March 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that many of us would be happy if she would call for a game. Sometimes things just don't go as planned; here she might have been a bit afraid of the trump quality after the 3 call and using the brakes at the wrong time caused the bidding to halt way too early. Their opponents bid 7 so getting to 6 would have cost 13 IMPs instead of 17.
March 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We bid this using 2/1 simply
1…2
2…3 (2 was either 6+ or 5 cards but not 2NT call)
4NT..5
5NT..7

After partner's 3, I sort of showed my cards by RKCB followed by 5NT and partner judged well. Our opponents were the other pair to stop in 4.

With the hand pair, I'd rather prefer West to RKCB :)
March 12
Esko Pikataival edited this comment March 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Psyching is legal. However, regular psyching in the same partnership creates a partnership understanding, which must be disclosed. In some jurisdictions certain partnership agreements are not allowed.

If EW are a regular psyching partnership, 1 response should be alerted and described along the lines what it has shown in its previous incarnations e.g. “might be three small as a lead inhibitor”.

In some jurisdictions that agreement might be banned.

Extract from Law 40C1: “Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system.”
March 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMO, opener's normal options are pass and double. Opener can bid 5 with an exceptional hand with high offense and low defense e.g. no A and void.

Opener's double should indicate willingness to defend. Pass just tells that “you redoubled so follow up your plan whatever that was”.
March 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Based on your description in the initial post, your opponent was following the procedure as it is written. However, the correct procedure might result in UI. We have the laws to deal with UI but nothing in your post suggested that his partner had utilized the UI.

As you stated, it is forbidden to ask only for partner's benefit. The opening post displayed no evidence on that.
March 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your opponent was correctly following the procedure set by the bridge laws.
March 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is based on a problem by Martens (published in 1992 in Przeglad Brydzowy) and later on the same year published by Chip Martel in rec.games.bridge (referencing the source). The solution is neat but a bit counter intuitive.
March 5
Esko Pikataival edited this comment March 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
.

Bottom Home Top