Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Harald Berre Skjæran
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 92 93 94 95
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That’s true, Steve. But now you’re talking about a different law. In the law defining the word «bid», specify refers to the denomonation of the bid. In laws regarding irregularities, specify refers to the agreed meanings of the irregular calls. Don’t confuse matters.
July 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve. Please explain how a bid can undertake to win a specified number of tricks in another denomination than the one named. Keep in mind than whatever any bid actually means, it might actually be passed out.

What you say is NOT what the law says.
July 11
Harald Berre Skjæran edited this comment July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ask yourself this question: Did 3 imply diamonds? If yes, 4 MIGHT be a comparable call. If no, it’s definitely not comparable, and partner is barred from bidding.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Clear pass being on lead vs 1NT; expected score defending is higher than declaring.

In balancing position it’s less clear. However, with both red queens an Jxxx, any lead from partner is OK, so it’s still a pass for me.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, 21 is a mis typing. There where players from 20 countries.
July 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've used this tool in an article soon to be published. Great tool! :)
July 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why do people think pass by north is a logical alternative over 4? What is a forcing (if it is) going to achieve? North has a 1st, 2nd and 3rd round control in spades. And can assume (not certain, though) south has a singleton heart. From north’s point of view, absent south’s explanation, they’re never stopping short of 5.

After south voluntarly supporter diamonds, I’m always bidding 4 with the north hand. If south bids 5, I’m passing. Over 5, I’m bidding 5, having made a slam try.
July 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Without any other discussion than mentioned in the OP and comments upthread, this bid doesn’t exist. The double showed exactly 44M F1, no more, no less.
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I really hope all my opponents agree with you, Ian.
June 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In our methods, partner rebids 3 with a min over 2NT. After that I can show a singleton diamond by bidding 4 (3NT would show a balanced slam try). For us, a direct splinter (4) would show a void and a limited hand (app. 10-12(13) hcp), with a stronger hand with a void we use mini/maxi splinter (showing either a singleton and GI values or a void and a slam try or force).
June 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Flagged the article - a first one for me, I believe.
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unless you have a regulation saying something different (like Sweden), the only legal ruling is 40/60.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Norway had one professional pair; the other four players all work full time non-bridge jobs.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You never assign a score like 309.23, David. That's completely wrong (and insane too). What you do is assign weights to different scores, compute the corresponding MP/IMPs and apply the weights to these.
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ok, I misunderstood what you wrote.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The opposition don’t find a 4-4 spade fit? Odd, since negative doubles should ascertain they do. They might have trouble with some 5-3 fits, though.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hm, that was odd. I’ve heard from one of our players and the team coach that the explanation given on Tony’s side of the screen was different: That they didn’t have an exlicit agreement in the actual auction. Therefor north couldn’t be sure if it was 1st or 2nd round control. But that it would show first round control in similar situations.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There was a separate reviewing team: Ton Koijman and Einan Levy. I suppose they decided this issue too.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Julian: Only 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014 had a different format (two groups with a round robin and a 2nd round robin with the nine top teams from each group). All championships prior to 2008 had a single complete round robin. And the same format was back again from 2016.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know that too. But if partner has a good hand we easily bury a 44 spade fit. Prefer 1 by far.
June 18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 92 93 94 95
.

Bottom Home Top