Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jane Eason
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Phil,

Are you a director?

I was playing against my mentee and her regular partner, two people I am crazy about. Still, I did not want her to think it was okay for her partner to pass in this situation.

Later, I decided I could be very wrong about the way I was looking at it and I told them I would check with the folks on this site.

If you think it is not okay for responder to pass, please explain further why you think it is not okay and what should have been done.

My partner and I got most of the available match points on the deal, so the score is not relevant.
March 31, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Way to go, Richard! Congratulations on a spectacular showing for the whole tourney, and on your stepping-stone squeeze!!
March 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for your input, guys.
March 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry I didn't make it clear, Alan, that this was a no trump contract with defenders having no black cards, the K having been played, and losing diamonds in dummy.
March 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd like to edit my previous comment to add that my hand was 4 clubs and 5 spades, and that the opponents had a 5-3 spade fit, but I don't see an edit button.
Jan. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also voted Other. And here're my points:

South's failure to double an alerted 2D followed by his failure to double the 5C response to Blackwood could have suggested to North that a heart lead was superior to a diamond lead.

Had the 2D bid been alerted, South could have doubled to show a good diamond holding. But he was denied that chance.

With no alert, his pass of what he believed to be a natural 2D was meaningless because he could have had a holding where it made sense to double an artificial 2D, but not the final contract.

Suppose that North-South had presented that defense, rather than (or along with) the defense that South may have bid 2H over an alerted 2D. Wouldn't the director have adjusted the score to 6H down one if he agreed with their take?

Suppose that the director realizes the points I'm making here at the time, but North South, in the excitement of the moment, does not get back into their bridge zone and work out for themselves that they were damaged in this way. Can the director base his rule on his knowledge of these facts, even if North South fails to point this out?

I think all the bases should be covered in such a situation and, to me, it seems more fair to give an average plus to North South and average minus to East West than to try to work out all the possible results and pick one based on the director's bridge knowledge (thinking about all directors here, and not the actual director in this case) or North South's skill in presenting their case in the heat of battle.
Jan. 27, 2017
Jane Eason edited this comment Jan. 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My pick-up partner and I sat down against the 1-seed on the last round of an open pairs. We'd had a good and lucky game, and I felt sure we could win the event by simply avoiding a disaster. On the last board, relieved to have a clear-cut bid, I opened a club on a hand where those who had sorted their hands correctly opened a spade. Our opponents' spade game was doomed, while the field's 3NT was cold. This lucky accident propelled us to a win, as we beat this pair of national champions by one match point.
Jan. 27, 2017
Jane Eason edited this comment Jan. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many, many years ago, playing on a pick-up, win-loss Swiss team, our side was cold for 3NT or 4H.

Partner opened 1NT. RHO bid an artificial 2D. And I bid 3D, which I intended as forcing. But partner passed, and we played our 3-2 fit.

3D was down one after the opponents led trumps at every opportunity, bumping their 12 and 13th trumps together.

Amazingly, at the other table, our opponents also played in their 3-2 diamond fit. The NT opener forgot their new convention, the Jacoby Transfer Bid, and he passed 2D.

Our team mates scored their trumps separately and when the smoke cleared, declarer was down 2.

We gained 2 IMPs on the board and won the match by 3.
Jan. 23, 2017
Jane Eason edited this comment Jan. 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Suppose the situation occurs where two players expose a key card at different tables in the same event. At one table, the law is enforced and the offender pays a costly penalty. At the other table, the law is ignored and the player suffers no penalty. Further suppose that the person against whom the penalty was waived wins the event, instead of being out of the money had the penalty been enforced.

In an attempt to be kind, the person who ignored the law determined the outcome of the event. The player who lost the event as a result of this “act of kindness” has suffered an injustice. And the player whose infraction was overlooked leaves with the opinion that future opponents who enforce the rules are unkind.

To me, it is a matter of ethics to call the director whenever an infraction such as a lead out of turn occurs. (A break in tempo is another matter, as it is not an infraction where one is required to call the director.)
Jan. 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Declarer loses the trick she conceded. She could easily have played a heart before running diamonds, as she has obviously miscounted diamonds. (By the way, it's my understanding that after play ceases, there is no longer a dummy.)
Dec. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the 60's or 70's, there was a bridge game with six suits, the two additional being Wheels and Rackets. And it was played with six players, three on each side.
Dec. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oops. This comment was responding to another post, so I deleted.
Dec. 12, 2015
Jane Eason edited this comment Dec. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If random results are undesirable in certain contests, why not run them like par bridge? Folks get credit for bidding to the right spot, but the play and defense are compared with declarers in the best contract with the same lead.
Dec. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a group of us drove to our first tournament, the discussion turned to filling out convention cards. Back then a jump to 2NT over partner's opener was forcing, showing 13-15 hcp. One friend said to her partner that if either of them should open 1C, a jump to 3NT shows exactly 12 hcpts. She said someone at a party bridge game had taught her that bid and that it always worked, so they should play that way. I told them that what they were discussing was a private understanding and that they should write it on their card. Turns out, the director was called when an opponent picked up their CC and found the words “Private Understanding” on the back.
Dec. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If West had led a low spade from AKxx, you would have made a trick with the SQ. It's barely possible that happened at a couple of tables, putting those declarers a trick ahead of you.
Dec. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Okay. I think I agree 100% with Steve Robinson's and Ed Reppert's comments. But, when a brand new player, hands shaking, declares a contract where it makes absolutely no difference which hand they lead from, I would never call attention to the fact that they are leading from the wrong hand. Wouldn't you guys just follow suit and when it cannot possibly make a difference? (Example: They lead a trump to the AKxx in dummy, play the A and then lead the Q from their hand.)
Dec. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Trick 1: CQ, H3, C?, CA. Trick 2: H5, ?, HK, ?. (Edited trick 2: HJ, H?, HK, H? might give them something else to think about. Maybe rho will duck HA at trick 2.)

If rho wins stiff heart A, he will probably shift to a spade. I'll play the S9 or cover the S10 with the SJ, pull another trump to hand and test spades.

If lho wins the stiff HA, I expect a spade shift. This produces 3 spade tricks and a test for 3-3 spades, plus I can fall back on the show-up squeeze if lho has the spades. Or, I can finesse in diamonds if rho has the spades.

If HA is not singleton, I expect a heart back from either side.

Further lines will be based on what the defenders do, how hearts break and who has the hearts if they are 3-0. And I have the added problem of ruffing my club and hoping to get back to hand to pull trumps.

Basically, with 2-1 hearts, we have a chance to finesse and ruff out the DK, but if diamonds don't break, we can still make with a squeeze on lho.

(Have I been playing too much with robots lately?)
Dec. 11, 2015
Jane Eason edited this comment Dec. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A slow double to me would not suggest doubt of beating the contract. I may be figuring how the play would go and where the cards were placed around the table to figure if our plus would be greater than game values or to figure if our game was iffy and that I should take a sure plus. I don't double game bids at match points unless I think most in my chair would make the same double.

Am I alone in my thinking?
Nov. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I were North, I would think partner had, at least, a good opening hand. Rho passed in 1st chair, and lho is preempting at favorable.

Partner's double suggests heart shortness and wasted spade values. However, I wouldn't expect his values to be totally concentrated in the spade suit when lho bid spades at the 4-level. I would think that it more likely that he has quick tricks.

I don't believe South's hesitation suggests that North should bid a slam in a new suit, so I don't see why the director would disallow that bid, whether or not the field would make the same bid.

(Did lho announce a skip bid? How long was the hesitation? Many players wait 10 seconds whether or not the skip was announced.)

What should North do over 4Sx if he had opened 1C, as I would have?
Nov. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After reading other comments, when playing the LTC, a 5-loser hand is good enough to bid game on this auction. (7-losers is a minimum opening bid. 6 losers plus a fit = an invite. 5 losers, plus a fit is good enough for game in a major.)
Nov. 11, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top