Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Adams
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 603 604 605 606
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know, I held the hand. I think the King 5th hand needs to bid, so I think you are wondering about your bad result for the wrong reason. If your partner bids, it will be far more natural to compete to the 3 level with this hand. Even though the contract is anti=percentage, it's better than defending 3, and sometimes pushes them to 4. In my club, they seem to always bid more, so I try to give auctions a little momentum. 1 member of the partnership doing all the bidding does not give the auction momentum.
20 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I abstained because your question was, “Is it the right thing to do?”

I will very often let a player having a senior moment fix something like this.

But it is not the right thing to do. A playing director should not do it ever since the director needs to communicate what is the rule and what is expected.

The right thing to do is to have the auction end and play 1 I don't believe I am allowed by the rules to give quarter in this situation. So why might I on occasion let them take it back?

Because it's sporting and more fun. I play bridge for the challenge. I play with this community because I like the people and a small act of kindness can save them frustration and make everyone have more fun.

Just don't let anyone ever tell you this is the right thing to do. We probably should not discipline such a blatant violation of the laws of bridge since it is not done to gain an advantage, but it is not to be celebrated, and more importantly, it is not to be expected.

As soon as you define something as the right thing to do, then you start thinking worse of people that don't do it. We do not need reasons to think badly of people, and certainly not for following the rules.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A lot of assumptions about an 8 card fit. 7 is frequent, and I have seen 6. It's not like 1 P 2 P P X where they almost always have 8. Sometimes they overcall a 4 card suit, and sometimes they raise on Hx. Maybe this is a regional thing and other areas don't see people that won't stop bidding and won't pass.
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would play both of Michael's sequences as takeout, but
1 P 1N P P X as penalty. In that case, partner has not ever bid.
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With real diamonds and no hearts, can't I just support diamonds?

I think 2N has to have at least 3 hearts. 2335 worst case. Pick a minor, but partner knows we don't have 8 card minor fit so tries 3 where we might have one.

I could be 2533, planning to correct 3 to 3 to show my hearts.
1525 is tough, but over 3 denying clubs, I can try 3.

Not clear to me that 2N scramble won't work every bit as well as double takeout if you are careful.

The loss is sometimes playing an 8 card minor fit when an 8 card heart fit is also available.
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd be fine bidding 2N with either of those.

Did not say impossible, just small target.

Smaller for me since I double very aggressively with a stiff spade at the 1 level.
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I had 4 hearts, I'd already have doubled, so 2N takeout is fine. I can also handle Hearts and Diamonds with a weak hand with 2N.

Takeout is a small target.
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No Ed. Calling the director is not picking on them.

Accusing the partnership of using the question to communicate distributional information, as has been done in this thread; saying they are not worthy of playing with, as has been done in this thread; is picking on them.

As usual, context is everything.
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom, you might consider posting partner's hand. I held that hand, and took the opportunity to show a little life at the one level. That made partner's 3 level competitive bid easier, and pushed the opps to 4 where we collected 200. I was E/W, and the N/S players refused to let me play any hands, bidding the same values multiple times until they had to book a minus score.

IMO, if your partner shows no life at the one level, you just need to let it go having bid twice. Consider for a bit what you need for 3 to make opposite partner's actual hand, then realize what you need if partner holds less.
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've heard this a number of times. I don't buy it.
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see we have more people being judgmental.

No, I don't need different partners.

I am playing with seniors that are just trying to have fun, and up there in years (80's) and have very frequent lapses.

I would not enter a serious event with these players, but it makes them happy for a few hours to play in a club game and not have jerks pick on them because they can't remember and can't follow suit a lot of the time.

I am sure they were much better when younger.

Do they lose the right to play in a club because they don't meet your standard of excellence? Do they deserve Barry's suspicions?

No. They are just old, and just human.

Get off your high horse.
Oct. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tomasz,

I believe some in the poll must actually pass for us to consider pass a logical alternative. (and a significant portion must consider). Off the wall actions picked by an outlier need not be considered an LA.

From Law 16…
(b) A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would pass the double with South's hand. I expect partner to have a singleton heart, and for 3 to be bloody.

North has such an easy pass it's pitiful.

Optional penalty: that must mean a slow double.

When I pull partner's penalty double, it's because I have a surprise huge fit.

xxxxx Axxxxxxx void void. and I think I would pull, but I expect partner still won't be happy.
Oct. 16
John Adams edited this comment Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I need the question in the clubs. I sometimes have to stop partner from establishing a revoke 2-3 times per hand. Recently, more than once on the same trick. Partner is drawing no distributional inferences from my question. It should be legal for me to ask before partner revokes, like I do before partner tries to play out of turn as I can sometimes detect a revoke before seeing partner's card. I am sympathetic to Michael's position in major events, but I need to get him playing with some of my seniors so he will realize how much damage would result in such a rule change.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
in your middle example..
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1) We would also see which players don't care and show up anyway.
2) Players that confessed and served their time would not be added to the petition.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
More crazy ideas….

A promise to attend might be more effective than a threat not to attend.

Imagine a petition, signing it stating that you will attend an event if the organizers ensure that none of the collusive cheating pairs attend. This signature comes with an entry fee deposit that is refunded if organizers refuse a clean event, and applied to your entries if they agree. Bridge Winners could easily handle this as they already do entries.

The event risks being gutted if the organizers don't comply.


It likely carries more weight that someone like me that's likely not going anyway just making a generic threat.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a frequent motive, but not the only one.

1) You could have a hand that will rebid spades and would rather play 3 than 2.

2) You could be making a law bid and have equal majors recognizing that 3 is safe if the opps have spades, but 3 is not safe if opps have hearts.

3) You could have a big fit for spades and a minor fit for hearts and expect partner will correct to 3 thus obfuscating your spade holding.

4) You could play that 2 is constructive as I do over partner's Woolsey 2.

5) You might have a strong hand with spades expecting an Ogust type response to Pass or Correct since you “know” your partner has hearts.

6) You could have the hand type Michael describes.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I disagree with the ruling because 4 making seems a more likely result on this hand than 3 making.

If you were assigned -140, you should take the money and run.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Note that if the poll had the players all bidding 5, and this resulted in 6 getting bid and made, I would not see a legal basis for requiring a pass 4. Pass has to be a logical alternative based on that polling for me to enforce it.

If 6 and 5 were the only logical alternatives, then they player is not allowed to select 6, and we would rule the bid had to be 5…. and live with whatever result that produced.

If 6, 5, and pass were all considered logical alternatives, then we could enforce a pass.

Hence my abstain….
Oct. 15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 603 604 605 606
.

Bottom Home Top