Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Harald Berre Skjæran
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 98 99 100 101
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
However, east knows that north most probably has balanced with only four spades (no overcall over 1), and should double.
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But east doesn't know this when north balances with 2, only when west makes the final pass.
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The upper limit is indeed higher for an opening bid, disagree with much higher, though.

What’s a reasonalbl spot is highly depending on scoring. Playing in a making minor suit contract is a reasonable spot at IMPs. At matchpionts or BAM it’s not reasonable at all if you have a higher scoring spot (major suit or no trumps). I agree that the odds for already being in a reasonalble spot is higher after an overcall than after a minor suit overcall, though not much higher.

But then there’s those game bonuses, which I prefer to achieve, when possible.
Nov. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would you bid 1 forcing with Axxxx Qxx xx xxx over a 1 opening?
Nov. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I’m not voting without knowing the range for 2NT. I’m not going to make any assumptions regarding this, and find it very strange that the OP doesn’t give this information.
Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I voted on that hand I was the only 5 voter, might have changed by now, though.
Oct. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can't see how 3 can end the auction here.
Oct. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
♠ A862
♥ void
♦ AJ532
♣ AQ103

Steve: “Bud, this is a 4 loser hand.”

Maybe you use some kind of adjustment factor I'm unfamiliar with. But I fail to understand how this isn't a five loser hand; 2+0+2-1=5.
Oct. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The WBF is the authority on the Laws, the ACBL only on local North American regulations.
Oct. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When showing a major and a minor over 1NT, my preference has always been that the major is a four card suit and the minor longer. A weak five card major is OK, though. With 5M4m, I prefer to bid the hand as one suited M.
Oct. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not correct. The ACBL include more than one nation, and isn’t a NBO. The NBO’s in the area covered by the ACBL would be a Canadian, US and Mexican Bridge Federation.

The problem here is that the ACBL (as most NBOs and at least one ZO) predates the WBF. The ACBL is different from ZO’s as it in most cases operates as both a ZO and a NBO.
Oct. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is covered by law 15B. Your ruling was correct.
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh my, Dave. If you can’t comprehend such a simple and logical sentence as L 62C2, why do you enter a discussion on bridge law at all? This law is unambigous, and applies to the situation at hand. In addition, you have law 47F2, which Henrik points to, which also is crystal clear.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Have you read the law, cited in the OP?
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There’s nothing in the law needing interpretation. A straight reading of the text tells you that a player on the offending side is only allowed to change his card played before attention is drawn to the revoke IF a player on the non-offending side. Thus, the ruling was wrong.

Didn’t those who voted different read the cited law before voting?
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, that’s an easy one. Roll the contract back to 4 and come down on that player with a severe disiplinary penalty.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why would anyone bid to the five level, off two club triks?
There's no extra bonus for bidding to the exactly making level, if I can remember this correctly. (And, as David commented above, you're going down even in four spades if there's a heart void and two ruffs available. Going -300 in stead of -50/-100 seems pretty stupid to me.)

Driving beyond game level can only be justified by the UI.

If you are showing only 1st round first, it might differ. But this pair doesn,t as shown by the 4 control bid on queen singleton.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How can pass not be a logical alternative. Without UI, I would be 100 % certain that my partner, at this level, didn't have a club control. That gibberish about 4 denying both a heart and a club control makes no sense to me at this level; partner would bid 4 with any hand with a club control without being able to take control (by asking for key cards, for example).
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not going to have any view at all an a ruling without knowing all the hands and the meaning of all bids made in the auction. And all explanations given (if any) for all bids on both sides of the screen.
Oct. 15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 98 99 100 101
.

Bottom Home Top