Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Joerg Fritsche
1 2 3 4 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I nearly always open 1, but of course I don‘t reverse if too weak. Either rebid 2 or 1nt.
Suit quality matters, with bad and good I might open 1
Sept. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I discussed that at length with the Chief Tournament Director. He refered to §79C (30 minutes correction period after the official score has been made available for inspection), §92B (time of appeal, also 30 minutes) and §81C3 (to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the periods established in accordance with Laws 79C and 92B.)
In my opinion, none of these applied. It was not a scoring error and not a request of a director's ruling by a participant.
I would refer to §81C which says ‘The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage’ - without any correction period, in combination with §90 and §91.
But on the other hand director's question is valid:'How long do you think, i have to correct this? 1 hour, 1 day, 1 month, 1 year?' There surely must be an end point of the correction period and supposed the Dres will go to a civil court, I think it is a wise decision not to take a longer period than other parts of the rules explicitely demand.
Sept. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even the german press - normally they don't have the slightest idea what bridge might be - mention it:

http://www.spiegel.de/sport/sonst/doping-bridge-weltranglistenerster-wegen-testosteron-dopings-gesperrt-a-1255840.html
March 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 should show something in , either a stopper for NT or a cue-bid for slam purposes. So W should bid 3NT over 3.

3 by E imo would show doubt about 3NT without something good in (and might be 65)
Jan. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1) and 2) show good 6card, 14-16 HCP.
3) is 18-19 balanced, not 3.
4) is 18-19 balanced. With -stopper after 1, without 3 after 1.
So the message of 3nt is always ‚18-19, don‘t look further‘
5) I don‘t use, if you like should be autosplinter with void
Sept. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great work Ante, and so much more information than just the naked Butler-Scores
June 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have the simple agreement, that x Nr. 1 and x Nr. 2 are for takeout (including all xx, counted as 1 x), x Nr. 3 is for Penalty. This is valid unless the situation is explicitly definiert as Penalty, which is not the case here.
Pass is forcing, unless Partner has enough length in so that I can‘t have a Penalty pass.

It is an easy agreement and it works.
Dec. 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the report, Paul. I was booked with my team for Montecatini with a nice hotel near the original playing ground. We wanted Italian holiday with competitive bridge. When we received the news about the change via mail from EBL we withdraw our participation and cancelled hotel and travel - luckily we had agreed on a free cancelation policy. As we hadn't yet paid our fees to EBL we had no more action to get our money back.
And after everything I read and heard I can say,that was one of my best decisions ever concerning a bridge competition.
2003 after the inaugural tournament in Menton the EBL president promised (it was written in the bulletin) that bad playing conditions like there never again will be offered to the players. But time is patient and it seems, bridge players as well.
June 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No ‘+’ for the transfer. It should be either weak or forcing to game, the simple raise is invitaitonal or limit or constructive - however you want to call it - but never better. Take away as much ambiguity from the bids as possible.
So a 2nd bid after the transfer, however the bidding may continue, is always a strong hand, forcing to game from the beginning. And a 2nd action by a raise hand is descriptive, but still the limited range.
Feb. 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Over 1NT it is possible to superaccept with maximum and 3cards with 2 Tops.
Over 2NT (or 2 - 2 - 2nt or similar) bidding the transfer suit shows a doubleton, with 3 or 4cards you bid something else. So the Transfer to a Major is gameforcing, if a fit is found.
Dec. 27, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Suppose Opener holds Axx, AKQx, xxx, Kxx and doubler holds KQJ10x, xxx, Ax, xxx. You have 10 cold tricks on a -lead and opener has no second thought what to do. Oh, wait, of course he has. He wants to play 3NT and he doesn't want pard to run. How can he manage this? Redouble to play? No, many play that as doubt and he has no doubt. Fast pass? What a mess, already too late for that.
So you are right, Thomas, the message of the hesitation is not absolutely clear. It either shows, that opener is not sure what to do or it shows, he know what is right, but not how to show it pard. But it still is a message and if pard gets it right the score can/should be changed. Isn't it the same with any slow bid? Does a slow invitation show minimum or maximum? Does a slow double show doubt about the cahnce to beat it or doubt about the meaning of double?

Kit, it was about 40 seconds. Part of the time was taken for the written explanation of the x, but there was still enough thinking afterwards, as both players admitted.
Nov. 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you all for your votes.

As some of you have already suspected, there was more than just the polled decision. It was a hesitation case, as the 1NT-opener needed his time, before he passed the double. He was rich of controls, but poor in with Jx.
This hand now bid 5, which easily made.
The score at some other tables was 3NTx-3 after a -lead, so obviously pass was a logical alternative. Doubler's partner had xx in and QJ10xx in , so no chance to go wrong. The doubler had 7 spades with AKQ10.

The director polled 5 players, but of course the problem in pairs is, all of them already knew the hand. Pass was a logical alternative for some of them, so directors changed the score to 3NTx-3. This was appealed and part of the appeal was that the poll results were kind of biassed. So I decided to post it here. Your votes showed clearly, that the director's decision, which was confirmed by the AC, was the right one.

As a side note: my partner and I also had no agreement and paid 800 after 2 quick passes. After the hand we agreed to play xx by 1st hand after the double as no -Stopper. If the hand has a -stopper and passes, partner can xx without a -stopper. So you can run from 3NTx, if opponents really have a running suit and take your chances in any other case.
Nov. 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Right, I forgot that one. But when I noticed, there were already too many votes, so I didn't add it.
Oct. 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No Chance for tray placement or coughing on BBO, so who cares? Personal blacklists also work.
Oct. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The correct answer to the question, which bid landed us in slam would obviously be 6, which landed us there very quickly. But I had to abstain, because slam is not so mediocre, but good enough not to make an ATB-poll
Oct. 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I also play x as t/o, but never do it with a singleton, so x promises 2 or sometimes 3 cards
Oct. 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, i think the 1st 5 teams of European Open get WBF-Masterpoints (zonal qualification for Bermuda Bowl, no idea why 6th placed team doesn't get WBF points)
Oct. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hans, i don't think that this part of your description is true:
'Now these results contained all scores of the pair, that is all contracts and results(say NS 3H-1) and the preliminary pairs results. Because other people inside were still playing the percentage was a guess'
We entered and checked all our results at the table, we never forgot to entre or acknowledge a score in the bridgmate. But still, when i printed my scoresheet after the session, some lines with results were totally blank. Most times the last or the last 2 boards. So if I wanted to check all my results, I had to come back later and get another print.
Sept. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit, that might be an explanation. At the table we were sure, the table-TD got all the facts right. Maybe he didn't. And I never explained the case to the Chief-TD (at least not in full, only in terms of the questions i cited above). They didn't want me to do it, because when I tried to go with the table-TD to the Chief-TD, he said ‘no no, wait here’.
On the other hand, I discussed the case that evening with another TD I know well, and he said, the decision can be made that way. As i was never convinced that system explanations should ever work that way, I posted it here.

Meike, the written explanation was ‘will not be alerted by partner’. They were no native english speakers, so he surely ment, partner will not tell that it can be 2 cards. Maybe he didn't know that short is taken as natural by the WBF and is not alertable in their policy. North was sure to be on the right side of the rules, if he behaves assuming both opponents play the same system and know what they play (as they should). I think, they weren't a standard-partnership (maybe captain and player of a team that didn't make it to the knockouts), maybe one forgot to mention the possibility of 2s before and partner wanted to tell us everthng he knows about his partnership experience. No bad Intention by opps anyway.
Sept. 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As South you could have done nothing else. As North you might have called the director, when your opponent told you, that his partner will not explain the system correctly. And ask him, how you should behave now. But as John Adams already commented here ‘the director will not tell you, what to bid’.
Sept. 21, 2016
1 2 3 4 5
.

Bottom Home Top