Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jane Eason
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Low diamond at trick 2.
July 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To us, 4C=Stayman, 4D/H=xfers, 4S asks for aces, 4NT invites, 5NT=pick a slam (5-card suit or NT). If pd answers aces over an invite, 5NT=stop.
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul, since rho failed to open a weak two or three bid, and since he failed to double 1NT, I feel sure his spades aren't good. And with me holding four and knowing partner has two or three, lho is marked with a singleton or void. Partner's concern is that the opps have a spade fit and I am sure they do not. If they have a fit, I think it's in diamonds.
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With no game interest, or if he had psyched red vs. white (not a real concern), partner would have passed an invitational 2NT, or even Lebensohl, for that matter, planning to run if doubled.

3C is forward going, and partner is worried about spade length on his left.

My hand and the opponent's bids tell me the opps have a 6-1 or 6-0 spade fit. Rho's spades are bad, and he doesn't fit hearts.

I see no logical alternative to bidding 3NT.
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, Neal. The director changed the N-S score from N-S -140 to N-S +130 for 3D, making 4. I agree my post is long and unclear.
July 15
Jane Eason edited this comment July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you're right, Michael, in your assessment. But you have the ability to operate from an intellectual standpoint at all times, an admirable trait lacking in most of us.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nicholas, I think many, if not most of us, resort to subjective reasoning when our own scores are at risk.

In my opinion, getting on the wrong track does not suddenly turn a player who tries hard to be actively ethical into a bad guy.

It simply means he does not see the right path at the moment.

In this post, I was not attempting to paint any of the four players as less than actively ethical players, but I am very interested in the opinions you guys have taken time to express here.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rui, E-W's agreement was Suction, with double showing the majors. (See my full comment following your entry.)
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With 12C1© being so subjective, I think 12C1(e) should return to the building. And when an adjustment is necessary, the director awards the non-offending side the greater of average+ or the actual score.

In a sectional tourney, my partner and I were the recipients of a strange (imo) ruling where, following misinformation, the director deemed the deal unplayable by the actual players.

He then proceeded to bid, play, and defend for all four players. And his calls resulted in the offending side's contract being played from the side that was dummy at all other tables.

He further assumed that, although the same damaging lead was made at all the other tables, that I could absolutely not lead from a broken honor holding, so the offenders received a favorable lead.

And although the director was more skilled than our actual opponents, he played the hand for them.

His ruling improved our score over the actual result, which had been a zero for us, but it awarded us an under-average score when our game was in the 60's.

This ruling made both sides unhappy. Hoping to keep their top, the offending side wanted a committee. I was all for them getting one, but, since we got the ruling after the game, no committee was available.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To answer the most frequently asked question here, the director assumed that East's double showed the majors, and that was later confirmed.

I believe that knowing the players well, knowing West was playing East's system, and knowing that East understood that his side owed the opponents their agreement rather than their actual holding did influence the director to accept the statement that misinformation had been given.

E-W were playing Suction. (Now adding that I am unfamiliar with suction, but Ray's comment below shows that it is an either-or bid, either diamonds or the majors.)
July 14
Jane Eason edited this comment July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I understand what you are saying, Sabrina, your understanding is that if someone says they lead 4th best, that statement means they must always lead 4th best from whatever 4-card suit they hold. But that is not what it means to lead 4th best.

Playing standard leads, if a player chooses to lead a doubleton, he can do that, and he will lead high from that holding. And doing so doesn't mean he is deviating from standard, 4th-best leads.

To say he leads 4th means that, given 4 or more cards in a suit, if he chooses to lead a low card, his agreement is to lead 4th from the top. Period.

For instance, if someone who plays 4th best leads holds AKQ2 of a suit, unless he is a rank beginner, he would never lead 4th best against any contract. And if his 4-3-3-3 distribution includes the AQ103 of spades, they may choose to lead any of their 3-card suits instead. And, since there is no 4th-best card in their other suits, you are asking them to do the impossible.

Most lead 4th best do not explain that from some holdings they lead top, for instance, from KQJ10 and from others they lead some interior card, such as the J from KJ109 because they assume that you are aware of the fact that these are not holdings where 4th best would be used.

As far as defining standard leads, they are what the sponsoring organization says they are. In ACBL territory, standard leads are printed on the back of the CC in bold print. And the cc gives partnerships a chance to circle exactly what they play.

You say you were asked to apologize for an incident that you didn't cause, but you actually did cause it.
July 14
Jane Eason edited this comment July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yu, I think GIB's penalty double of 2H would be explained as “rebiddable hearts”.

I voted for something else because, with my most frequent partners, this double is penalty. But with GIB, I hover over all doubles to see if the word rebiddable is used.

(Edited to explain why I chose “something else” in the poll.)
July 11
Jane Eason edited this comment July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my opinion, the following facts will make the event a success:

1. Nobody's partner will bitch or moan over a bad bid or play.

2. Everyone's opponents will have impeccable manners.

3. Contestants' partners and opponents will be equally skilled.

4. A 24-board session will take only an hour or so to complete.

5. Rulings will be automatic, and therefore not subjective.

6. Nobody will revoke or lead out of turn or make an insufficient bid or fail to make a contract because their claim was improperly worded.

7. Players will have zero expense for lodging and travel, and zero travel time, so many players who could not attend a national will be able to participate.

8. Night owls and morning people will be happy with the schedule, as folks can choose their favorite time to play.

9. Players can get a snack or a drink at any time during the session.

10. Bad weather will have little effect on the game.

11. Four-session events are fun.

12. Participants can replay theirs or others' games to see how they could have done better.

13. Size does matter to most of us, so having over a thousand players in this event will be very exciting.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To accept w/ 0, 1 or 2 aces, we answer Blackwood.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Allan.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also replayed Jim Munday's game, and although he was lucky, his game was more than shooting and good luck. He played the spots off the cards, and he took way more tricks that most of us would via deception and squeeze play. Besides, he would have won this session with a lot less score because 2nd place in this session was in the very low 80's.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Way to go, Jim!
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yu, I think we have a different field on each board. In the first tourney, when we could see results on each board before the event was over, some of my boards had been played 42 times, and others 19 times.
July 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My guess is 78%.
July 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
.

Bottom Home Top