Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Esko Pikataival
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My case and the committee decision took place in Europe, probably in the early 90's and the appeals committee decision was to adjust the score with the clarification that in a hesitation case like that the player must play the lower; in that case the card was a sure winner. The reason for hesitation was that going up would expose the 2nd honour to ruffing finesse but OTOH playing low might give declarer a surprise trick.

I'm not trying to judge the case here. I'm just bringing in the possible background for the director ruling.
Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not an EBL/WBF director. However, a long time ago (I think it was European Pairs Championships) a player hesitated from 2nd hand in defense (for a bridge reason) with two touching honours whether to duck or go up (to win the trick). He went up with the higher and later the appeals committee decided that hesitation is ok but thereafter the player must play the lower.

AFAIK, the case above is a precedent from a high level European Appeals committee, even though on hesitation on defense.
Feb. 19
Esko Pikataival edited this comment Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Clyde Love's book is dry like the Linear Algebra book but IMO it's a good theory book and the exercises are ok even though poorly presented. I learned a lot from that.

It's not necessary to remember everything from the book; once the concepts are understood the rest can be worked out at the table. The concepts are also very necessary when defending.
Feb. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks. I added the half time score (+35) so if you re-read, you won't get surprised any more.

Four of the hands above were flat. The rest of them we won 56-51.
Feb. 13
Esko Pikataival edited this comment Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks; fixed (9-14 is the correct range)
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks; I use BW as my therapy session after a tough weekend of bridge
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I cannot see any merit in 3. What would be the point of bidding that and what would that achieve?
Jan. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The NT range is such that the maximum is not interested in game facing 14 BAL. Non-vulnerable it can be bad and featureless 11; the problem hand evaluates to 9+ on K&R count and on experience the 3x4 with 3 queens is worth less than the hcp count shows.

I had invitational 2NT (11-12) available. The hand is just not good enough for that (IMO).

Partner was not suggesting to play 3; he was just showing extra playing strength. He could have easily held K instead of J making the NT game very good even with the diamond blockage; change the diamonds to AK9xxxx vs JTx the game would still be very good.
Jan. 28
Esko Pikataival edited this comment Jan. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With the Q in South hand instead of the A, they can cash too many tricks.
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes; somehow the A had appeared instead of the Q. I probably wanted to rig the scenario to be able to beat it at least this time.
Jan. 27
Esko Pikataival edited this comment Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dummy is going to hold at most 2 trumps and West hand suggests that dummy is unlikely to have ruffing values. However, in this auction, dummy might be void in clubs and partner might have AJx or similar. A good rule of thumb is to avoid trump leads against one suiters unless the auction suggests that dummy holds ruffing values.
Jan. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The 4 step response is 3, because (AFAIU) the responses start from 3; 2NT shows the 21-23 BAL.
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With 4333 the slam try is 4NT. With 4333 and enough stuff for 6, responder bids 3 (NAT FG) to locate the spade fit and thereafter 6 or 6NT accordingly.

With 4 spades and 4 card minor, responder can bid the minor to locate a 4-4 fit either in spades or in the minor and thereafter either invite to slam or drive to slam.
Jan. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AFAIU, there is no legal basis for the score adjustment. Imagine West bidding 7 (instead of 7NT) for 9 down and -2600 and claiming he was trying to a) sac, b) give opponents a problem. As a bridge action 7 would be nearly as absurd as 7NT but it would just be classified as a stupid bid and the punishment for a stupid bid is generally a bad score (and, as this is zero sum game, a great score for the opponents).

In my jurisdiction, both 7 and 7NT would fall under the disciplinary code (unsportsmanlike conduct) but the penalties under that code cannot be used for score adjustment. However, the actions would at least generate a warning and possibly a short period suspension.

There are two problems with score adjustments like the one done here:
a) it has not legal basis (AFAIU)
b) it creates a dangerous precedent

The b) raises its ugly head in situations where somebody makes a very stupid bid and joins millennium club (or worse). What would be the level of stupidity where director might adjust the score to A+ for the opponents?

The stupidity vs. unsportsmanlike conduct should be something that is discussed in the disciplinary committee.
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Blue Club and Romex would not survive today.”

Romex overloads balanced one level openings (even though they are somewhat limited by the dynamic NT/Mexican 2) and Blue Club hides the nature of the hand (canape) with the openings.

With the current fierce competitive bidding, clarifying the nature of the opening hand is IMO a little bit too difficult.

Both systems were ok, when opponents used to pass more.
Dec. 19, 2018
Esko Pikataival edited this comment Dec. 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I played Regres before the HUM/HAS restrictions and would still play some sort of real weak openings system with forcing pass if it would be reasonably possible (probably Suspensor type of a system). Even though I consider Regres times to be the most enjoyable, I have enjoyed playing all of them.

Each system was a child of its time. Blue Club and Romex would not survive today.

My current choice of “Bart Simpson Club” combines the weak openings with a structure, which can be played even in pairs tournaments practically everywhere.
Dec. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have played 4cM strong club system with weak openings pretty seriously for 20+ years and can suggest that you weight carefully the pros and cons before making the decision.

Our structure for 1st/2nd hand openings:
pass = 0-8
1 = 15+ => three tier response structure
1 = 9-11 BAL W/O 4cM or 9-14 4+ diamonds, longer clubs possible
1M = 9-14, 4+ cards (no canape)
1NT = 12-14 (structurally strong NT)
2 = 9-14, 5+ and 4cM or 6+
2 = 3-8, Ekren (44/45/54/55 majors)
2M = 3-8, weak 2
2NT = 19-20

The openings are identical in 3rd/4th position with added strength:
15+ => 19+ (strong club)
9-14 => 12-18
12-14 => 16-18 (NT)

We play pretty natural continuations, which requires quite a lot of judgment with certain marginal invitational hands. One loss with 4cM structure is the lack of 2/1 FG structure, because it makes no sense to play forcing 1NT.

We have solved some of this with a wide range (8-13) 1NT response, to which the opener passes only with 9-11 BAL. Our 2/1 shows either 14+ or about 12+ with 6+ card rebiddable suit.

After 1-2 we use 2/2NT inversion to let responder bid 2NT with 14 and let opener raise it with 10 or 11. After 1M opening and 2/1, opener rebids the suit with 5332 and minimum to let responder bid 2NT with 14. If opener rebids 2NT (9-11), responder just has to raise leading to some Meckwell specials with 9 vs 14.

We have also agreed that after 2/1, raise of opener's rebid suit to 3 is FG, forcing us to bash game with invitational hands.

2 opening is horrible. This could be adjusted by loading more to 1 opening but this is the way we prefer it.

I have played seriously Regres (FP system), Blue Club, Romex and Precision. I play 2/1 in casual partnerships.
Dec. 19, 2018
Esko Pikataival edited this comment Dec. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This gives a completely new set of facts starting with the form of scoring (IMPs versus the suggested matchpoints).

If West was using his judgment and East was guessing what West tried to show makes this semantically completely different from having an agreement.

The legal basis for the score adjustment is misinformation in the form of failure to alert. If West was using his judgment instead of having an agreement, 1NT was probably non-alertable and there is no basis for adjustment.
Dec. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Swiss format is often used with MP scoring. Swiss pairs means normally matchpoints where the pairing is Swiss.
Dec. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Ed Reppert

I had pretty clearly justified my position on the matter whether it's alertable in Australia earlier (some comments below).
Dec. 16, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
.

Bottom Home Top