Join Bridge Winners
All comments by James Lawrence
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 63 64 65 66
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You don't need quite such a restriction on (1); my version is “when *you* have bid game expecting to make it, *your partner*'s pass is forcing”. Thus if responder passed here, opener would be obliged not to pass if they had bid 4 expecting to make it.
May 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pedantic of me, but 3NT should be 9-10 not 8-10!
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
… or maybe make it so the vulnerabilities are a lot more distinct — perhaps

Non vul: -50 / -200 / -400 per undertrick (undoubled/x/xx)
vul: -200 / -400 / -800 per undertrick.
May 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What would 1 – 2 have been? If it is weak then partner is likely to be a bit stronger in this auction and we might chance another call, otherwise I would pass.
May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had to venture to the second page, because I didn't realise the auction scrolled and was desperately trying (and failing) to bring 6 home on an endplay…
May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From the point of view of writing the laws, it's pretty much either that or “anything goes”. The latter would certainly be interesting, but the barrier to entry is already high enough for the new player without having to contend with ten different forcing pass systems whenever they go to the club…
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not an expert, but I play the following:
2: anything not covered below. I've never liked Kokish.
2: KQxxx or QJTxx or better in the bid suit, 6+ HCP
2NT: 8-10, “very notrump oriented hand” (either 4333 or 4432 with honours in the shorter suits, honours should not be concentrated in one suit)
3: similar to 2 but with an extra card in length
3: AKQxxx or better in the bid suit, may have honours outside
3NT: we never got round to setting a meaning for this so we left it unused. You could move the 2NT meaning here, maybe…

I think a natural approach is perfectly playable as long as you are clear on your requirements for suit quality.
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, the funny thing could have occurred during the auction, or the clarification period. The OP doesn't say it is a play of the cards (though I think we can assume it is now that we have seen the auction!)
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@andy, I think the humour passed you by :)
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What's the plural of “hapax legomenon”? :P
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Who was the dealer? (Edit: just realised you already said it was North — sorry!)
May 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I only meant they could see each other's hands — not yours too! For sure if they knew about the club ruff they wouldn't play 4 but 3NT could easily lose three diamond tricks (they don't know AK are onside). You might not lead a D on this auction at trick one but you would switch as soon as you regained the lead.
May 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Concerns about what? If they could see each other's hands, they would surely have chosen to play in 4. On best defence that scores better than 3NT doesn't it?
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You weren't “wrong” to call the director and ask for it to be recorded. The regulations specifically allow you to do that for any (or even no) reason, unless it is for the specific purpose of disconcerting your opponents. However, I would not expect any further action from the director in this case.
May 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can do better at least insofar as I am usually capable of following law 17C. Perhaps there was some sort of magnetic anomaly in the room?

On hand one I wouldn't have found the club lead, but would have doubled 3 as North. Presumably South would pass rather than bid 4 but either way we score better than 250.
May 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The laws' terminology on this is that a psyche must be “gross” and “deliberate”. If it's deliberate but not gross, it's a deviation. If it's gross but not deliberate, it's a misbid.

The laws do not explicitly define what “gross” means in this context. I think some regulating authorities do (not sure about ACBL, and pretty sure BBO themselves don't). Generally one card in length is not considered gross; generally two cards in length in the same suit *is* considered gross. I have never had to adjudicate two separate one-card discrepancies in different suits and don't have a strong view as to whether you should consider it a psyche or a deviation.
May 12
James Lawrence edited this comment May 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It can happen sometimes — in this sort of situation, the score might be weighted on one side only and the non-offending-but-serious-error side get table result. The other situation where it might happen is where there isn't an offending side (extraneous events or director error) and both sides are treated as non-offending, and each gets a sympathetic weighting.
May 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is allowed in an individual event, but not in pairs or teams
May 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
you can only split the score if you feel that NS have committed an “extremely serious error, wild or gambling action”. Which of NS's actions do you think falls into that category? (Weighting the score is acceptable if you think there is some chance NS would have acted differently)
May 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 63 64 65 66
.

Bottom Home Top