Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Helene Thygesen
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But that means you will be playing 3 if you have a spades fit. Wouldn't it be better just to transfer to diamonds with those hands and then use this sequence for something else? OK you can be lucky to buy the contract in 2 but opps will probably balance with hearts.

In one partnership I use Stayman with weak hands with four spades and five diamonds, but those hands will bid 2 after a 2 response to Stayman.
Dec. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
fwiw you need 40 bits per deal (39.208 if your computer can handle fractional bits :) )
Dec. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can I vote “hate it but it is better than Capp?”
Nov. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 1NT is 6-10 then opener has a problem with a 4M5m hand and 15-16. I suppose you could play a reverse as non-forcing but that would be very non-standard and probably not a good idea. So it is nice if 1NT can be 8-10 as in Polish Club.

I don't think that is playable after 1 unless you are happy to respond on a 3-card major. But after 1 you can play 1NT as 8-10, and then the 5-7 hands will have to fake a 1 response. I would consider that standard here in the Netherlands but maybe that is a regional thing.
Nov. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With five diamonds responder passes since defending 2 undoubled is already a great spot, and doubling just runs the risk that they go to a major. Note that responder would have used stayman with 4/3-5-1 so he must have a doubleton in a major.

For that reason I don't think that 2M should show 4/3-1-5 as Yuan suggests. Maybe a possible scheme is
dbl: 3-3-2-5 (in case opener is allowed to have a five card major).
2: 4-4 majors OR 2-4-2-5
2: 4-2-2-5
2NT: does not really exist but if it comes up it is natural. Probably only makes sense w/w at matchpoints.
3: six clubs (in case we sometimes don't bid on this directly).

You could also play dbl as more penalty oriented, something like 3-3-3-4 or thereabouts.

In any case, I don't think an artificial 2NT is useful here. With only clubs you just bid them, with two suits you want to offer a contract at the 2-level.

By the way, now that 2NT is doubled, opener doesn't need to wory. Just pass, responder can bid 3 if he meant it as something artificial. Of course, with six clubs, or maybe five good ones, opener can bid them.

Oops sorry Yuan, I got confused about 3/4-1/5 and 3/4-5-1. Some people bid 3-4-1-5 and/or 4-4-1-4 via Stayman but probably not 4-3-1-5.
Nov. 24, 2015
Helene Thygesen edited this comment Nov. 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If they open 2 you can play 3m as to play, 3 as a transfer to spades and 3 as choice of game with four spades.
Nov. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If W is very inexperienced I don't think the chance that W has extra values is affected by the failure to alert. The only thing it shows is that if W forgot NMF she probably doesn't have four clubs. Probably her typical shape would be 2443 if she took 2 as natural and 2344 if she took it as NMF, so the non-alert is red herring IMO.

I voted “yes” because I think that with a very weak declarer maybe the best chance of a good result is to underbid and hope for bad splits. Without that consideration there is no LA to 3NT.

But in any case, the non-alert doesn't conway any usable information so E can do what she wants.
Nov. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually I prefer not to play a natural 1NT at all but put all the balanced hands in the minor suit openings. 1NT could for example show long clubs (or long diamonds, as Ian suggests. I haven't tried that).
Nov. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe a reasonable policy would be to apply criterion 2 for domestic purposes and criterion 5 for representing USA/Canada in international events where IOC criteria may apply (if that is the WBF policy). Selection of IOC teams (and other teams that represent ACBL countries in international competition) is something for USBF, CBF etc so it is not something ACBL needs to worry about.
Nov. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
12-14 1st/2nd, 14-16 3rd/4th.
Nov. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It did, there was a transsexual Candian mountain biker who was not allowed to play in the Canadian women's team afew years ago.
Nov. 2, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top