Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Esko Pikataival
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
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
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
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I had agreed the wide range and had agreed follow-up methods to disclose a stronger unbalanced hand, I think that 1NT would be alertable also in ACBL jurisdiction. I know for certain that it would be alertable in mine.
Dec. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My understanding is that 1NT was alertable per ABF alert regulation 3.3.2 b). The EW system is built around “strong” NT concept so the normal assumption of the 1NT rebid is a balanced hand below “strong” NT range. When the EW agreement is that the rebid can show either the “weak NT” or an unbalanced hand in the “strong” NT range, it seems to me that the spirit of 3.3.2.b) matches.

Law 21B1(a) states that failure to alert is deemed misinformation.

With the suggested information ( max 13 BAL), South can see that the 3NT contract should be close to a coinflip. There are zillion of reasons why South wanted to flip top-or-bottom.

Was South damaged by the misinformation (failure to alert)? In my opinion, yes, because the coinflip is not a coinflip any more when West holds the 15-16 range.

It should also be noted that defending 3NTX in pairs is a completely different story than defending 3NT. In 3NT X, you don't care about the overtricks; your only target is to set the hand.

In 3NT defending is different, because there isn't always a known trick target and each trick is important.

I would remove the double and would try to estimate if EW make 10 or 11 tricks.
Dec. 16
Esko Pikataival edited this comment Dec. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I happened to be in the 1987/1988 EBL Systems Committee, which was working for the first system policy for systems currently known as “Highly Unusual Methods” (HUM) and then as “Highly Artificial Systems” (HAS).

The only reason why I was in the committee was my hands-on knowledge of weak openings systems (aka forcing pass systems).

I drafted the first definitions of HAS with my former partner and system theorist Eero Salmenkivi. The intent was to define systems with FERT (i.e. a call promising 0 to some upper limit of hcp strength) and systems with one level either-or openings as Highly Artificial.

Typically either-or openings were like 1 promising 0-2 or 6+ hearts (Suspensor, No Name) or 1NT showing red or black two suiter.

As Eero Salmenkivi is both a mathematician and a philosopher, the definitions from those days were pretty solid.

After the first draft my term in the Systems Committee more or less ended. The “real” committee took over and developed the first EBL systems policy.

Later the definitions were tinkered by multiple committees both in EBL and in WBF. At some point, the wheels came off.
Dec. 15
Esko Pikataival edited this comment Dec. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I might have botched some comparisons as I just tried to locate the scores from the other table from the butler scores and then used my inbuilt IMP table; the official score was 70-12.

Yes, we did win the event. Otherwise I might have slit my wrists instead of writing the article :)
Dec. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The format in both is a round robin. In the semi finals there were four groups of four teams playing a round robin with two teams from each advancing to the eight team final.

Our nemesis and our team advanced from our semi final group.
Dec. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South discarded the 4 on the last heart.
Dec. 14
Esko Pikataival edited this comment Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assume that East holds QT9 and some small spades. From East's perspective, West needs 8xxx for set but only if East plays a diamond after the last heart (to break the pointed suit squeeze).

If East held Qxx and some small spades, his chance for set would be the diamond switch (again), to break up the squeeze (again).

If your assumption about East's caliber is that he would always play a diamond in the cases above, then set up the spade trick.

However, remember what I learned from

https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/a-new-lesson/

I would run the clubs ending in dummy trying to make either with diamond miracle or squeeze.
Dec. 14
Esko Pikataival edited this comment Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This 3NT is not something I really want to be in. However, avoiding it requires Gazzilli equivalent or 4th suit F1R but not FG.

2 = wide range, can be up to some 17 hcp. North should not pass 2, because there might be a game facing maximum. The only thing North can do is to raise diamonds; this is again a wide range bid from a courtesy raise to a real invitational.

South may gamble 3NT as North might have a reasonable 11 count.

Playing limited (up to 15) 2 rebid (Gazzilli corollary), North can pass and then compete to 3, if necessary.

Playing invitational 4th suit forcing, South can pass 3, because North doesn't hold real invitational values.

Sometimes both players are minimum for their actions :)
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please, see P-O Sundelin's response to Frances Hinden (currently) four comments above.
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that I would take the dull line of trying to find either A or K onside.

My plan is to win the first diamond, cash AKJ of clubs (unblocking the 9) and then play a spade to the K. If they take 5 spade tricks (unlikely), then take the next board.

If the K loses and I'm still in the run, I'll take the finesse.

I need to win the first diamond to be able to lose four spade tricks.

If the K wins, I'll take the finesse next (only in matchpoints).
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I made the card showing X, one of the options was that partner would leave it in. The card showing X also declared the ownership of the hand.

AFAIU, partner did not pull to sac but pulled to make. So my pass tells that I might have the goodies required for 5 but I cannot be sure. The final mistake is left for the partner, who can decide if he has bid everything in his hand or if there's something to spare.

X would be a strong suggestion to defend (but I still have the cards I already showed with the X).

I treat a pass as forcing, if the caddie knows it's forcing. In this situation I consider this pretty clear.

I also seem to be in the minority with strong opinions but this is not the first time in my life.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Finland

Seeded KO teams trials in all categories.

Mixed trial results (in Finnish)
http://www.bridgefinland.com/bilbo/results.php?tid=2200
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
According to one auction commentary, pass of 4 X denied a diamond control.

Yes, F refers to something, which should not be named; a convention showing 4 spades and 5/6 hearts in a limited opening hand.

The auction timed well for Grue, as Levin displayed some slam interest with a club control and thereafter denied a diamond control. West's hand became in that light much better than the initial (IMO, heavy) 3 raise.
Dec. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know for sure but my gut feeling is that F-convention has something to do here. If EW play F, 1 promises 5 or more.

Once East shows a club control and nothing in diamonds, Grue can count 13 tricks against AQ and A either with running clubs and hearts or two diamond ruffs in case East has a small singleton club (5 spades, 2 ruffs, A and 5 hearts). Facing AQxxx Axx xxxx x the grand slam is not so great but but makes with 3-2 spades and reasonable breaks elsewhere.
Dec. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It becomes a partnership agreement per law 40C if it is repeated.
See my comment below.
Nov. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would like to raise two issues from this incident:
a) undisclosed partnership agreement
b) partnership agreement against the system policy

At least in my jurisdiction, a repeated psyche becomes a partnership agreement and must be disclosed.

In this case, I would assume, that an agreement that 1 opening is either 10-15 or 0-4 would be against the system policy.

Here is law 40C1 to back this up:

Deviation from System and Psychic Action
A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings, provided that his partner has no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation (but see B2(a)(v) above). 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. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may assess a procedural penalty.

The referenced Law 40 B2(a)(v) gives regulating authority mandate to restrict the use of psychic artificial calls.
Nov. 28
Esko Pikataival edited this comment Nov. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It makes no sense to psyche the 1NT overcall for the following three reasons a) vulnerability b) RHO already opened with a limited opening bid c) partner is unlimited.

The overcall might be made with an upgraded 14 like AQx xx KQT9xx Kx but I would expect full 15 with a good minor.

Partner's pull suggests either a psyche or a bad hand but somewhere in the opening context. IMO, partner should open 3 if holding a total psyche with long spades (like JTxxxx xx xxx xx) and 2 with something looking like a weak two.

I would bid 4 expecting that to make. We might have a slam but I don't see any reasonable ways to get there. I think that partner's opening has put us in a better position compared to the other table where the bidding might have started pass 1NT.
Nov. 26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
.

Bottom Home Top