Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Helene Thygesen
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When exactly did the correction period expire? If after the last session then it doesn't matter that the tournament might have gone differently with the correct scoring, since the alternative situation to consider is that the board had been corrected within the correction period.
Sept. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Something just came to my mind: maybe the idea is that very light 1-level openings would give some negative inference to the opening “pass” which the regulators for some reason don't like. However, you can get away with such things under current WBF regulations. For example, there are some pairs in the Netherlands that play a 1st/2nd seat pass showing 8-11 points because all 0-7 point hands open at the 2-level. Similarly, you could play pass as showing an unknown five card minor if you want.
Sept. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From opps point of view there is not much difference between a light second seat opening and a light third seat opening. IN both cases, one of them has had a chance to open. So they are equally difficult to defend. So I suppose that my pov is that whichever rational there might be for banning light 2nd seat openings probably also applies for 3rd seat openings.

However, I don't really understand the rational for these regulations. Opps need a defence against all kind of artificial openings, and they need a defence against weak 2-openings. If we play very light 1-level openings they might consider playing the 2nt overcall as natural and to play strong jump overcalls, but that's not so difficult. It is absurd that we can play 4-card canape preempts, weak notrump, multi and Moscito (all of which opps certainly need to discuss a defence against) but not light 1-level openings.
Sept. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4, hopefully partner won't cooperate without A. I am most of all worried about an immediate heart ruff.

Alternatively, just blast 6, LHO might not find the heart lead even if he has the ace.
Aug. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Salon.com commented today on Facebook: Michelle Obama's DNC speech not just a home run but a grand slam.
July 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My preference would be to allow anything in clubs and the main room, but to keep tourneys and team matches as close as possible to IRL competition. Apparently the BBO management thinks that since everybody would look at their notes anyway, they may as well allow it. That is a bit cynical for my taste but maybe they are right.

At rated online sites like Stepbridge and OKB, I would prefer everything to be allowed at unrated tables but apply normal rules at rated tables.
Feb. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But that means you can't look at your own cards while it is someone else's turn.
Dec. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think many would disagree that the law is intended to restore equity and not be punitive. What annoys me with this thread is that some seem to think that those who argue for letting declarer take the finesse necessarily argue so because they think the law is punitive. We just happen to disagree about what equity is, i.e. what would have happened if declarer had played it out as she intended.
Dec. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Last tuesday my pick-up p handed me an A4 page with small print. I thought I figured it out more or less: Leads and carding are both odd=odd or discouraging, T-walsh with accept = 2- support, Rubensohl as response to t/o doubles, almost all jumps are splinters, 2NT rebid (!) is a forcing raise, overcalls can be 21 points so almost forcing. We only had two bidding misunderstandings when he twice made a support double in response to my overcall which I took as responsive.
But in the post-mortem it appears that while I had assumed we played 2/1, he played that a 1NT response showed 7+ points without fit and every other response showed 3+ fit. I probably shouldn't have tried to convince him that that is completely unplayable, it just made him annoyed.
Dec. 11, 2015
Helene Thygesen edited this comment Dec. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 = 3+, 1! = 4+, 1M = 5+
I asked what they opened with 4=4=3=2. They found that a very interesting question, they had never thought about that.
Dec. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But that is more an argument for the opposite, isn't it? If you say “no finesse allowed” then you are enforcing a mechanistic rule that will sometimes force declarer to do something stupid.
Dec. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What about making a virtual reality interface to BBO so that would be playing at a virtual table (screenless) with a real-World appearance and both opps represented by their true images, including coughing, sneezing, tanking etc, while p was represented by a robot?
Dec. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it would be nice if we could just respect each other's opinions and not accuse anyone of “lawyering” or “bending the rules”. Probably everyone wants to restore equity, we just happen to disagree about what constitues equite in this case, i.e. what declarer might have done if the board had been played out.
Dec. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In principle (1) but if we are talking about undisclosed implicit agreements then I believe that evidence of fielded misbids is crucial. Frequency also but unless you are monitoring suspected pairs you are not going to get robust statistics. Unless you encourage people to fill in recorder forms whenever opps do something strange but that would promote a terrible culture. I think that any club that has a (perceived) serious problem with this should consider organising indys instead of pairs tournaments.
Dec. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nah, this issue is related to computer-generated hands which we have already. It is not specific to BBOH.
Dec. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was stated in the opening post that she miscounted and she thought the spades would give her three club discards.
Dec. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
FWIW I am Scandinavian but I don't see the relevance of culture here. It is just a matter of figuring out what declarer's intentions really were. Yes, she intended just to cash her winners but that is because she thought that would give her the rest of the tricks. She obviouse hadn't thought of what she would do in the event that she discovered her miscount in the process.
Dec. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes you are right, Nick.
Dec. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I always thought 70 E2 applied to situations where the cards in question were all in one hand, for example holding AKJx if he said “I play three rounds of trumps” the director should interpret it as AKJ in that order. So I don't think it is relevant here. Declarer intended to cash spades, then he might discover his miscount and decide to take a finese, but then again he might not. Benefit of the doubt goes to defenders.
Dec. 9, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top