Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Adams
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 576 577 578 579
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How does the UI say he is stronger than 13? I think the UI tells me partner was shape challenged to go along with his points. Some hand he could not show in our methods. His pass combined with his known points also tells me this, but that's a 2nd order assumption.


I think the real issue is that the AI does not occur to people looking at a 3 count. So the UI wakes them up. Many players will pass this out quickly if partner passes in tempo, not even thinking, gee partner must be loaded. So in effect, the UI has a causal effect.


It's that causal effect that has be questioning if we should allow 3, not the notion of 3 being suggested.
5 hours ago
John Adams edited this comment 5 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Henrik,

RHOs pass suggests the exact same values for partner as partner's hesitation. So there is a legal source of the same information transmitted by the UI.

Am I required to ignore the information received from a legal source just because I have the exact same information from an unauthorized source?
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have no solid suit option since 6 winners is a 1 bid.
13 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But that would be a silly agreement when you have a hand that is happy with Spades as Trumps.
14 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with David that we can tell which players were picking up vibes vs which ones were just flailing. I would not want to give this director any less credit.
May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK. You are prepared to go for a large number. I get it. Does it feel better knowing it's coming? :-)
May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is one the majority needs to learn. Don't bid a 3 card spade suit, it just does not work well for you.
May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And which of that public transportation takes David the 5 hours from Spokane to Seattle?
May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pretty sure 4 just shows 6-5. You think partner should pass my double. Others think partner should pull the double, and looking at partner's hand, I don't even know what I want.

I don't mind double. I don't mind pass. I would not like 5.
May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is where we disagree. I force all the time without being able to handle every possible result.
May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
X is Reasonable.

I just hate doubling with a void. The notion that doubling will get partner to bid 5 more often than passing is not at all intuitive. And it's not clear we want to be bidding looking at partner's hand. The club King could be off, and we are beating 5 two tricks on the diamond misguess, with 5 having no play. So if we don't know what we want looking at partner's hand, I don't see how we can be critical of any action taken by South.

I am OK with any of Souths options and consider pass very reasonable. So long as partner makes reasonable calls, I don't assign blame. I dislike bidding 5 over 5.
May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, Sorry, that was careless of me. Removed.
May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marty, In competitive auctions, I teach that it's trump length that matters, not points. Sure the auctions are different. But the key is to avoid competing over 2 when they are in a 6 or 7 card fit, and that part is actually easier for us since our double will promise exactly 2 spades. Partner is stuck whenever he holds 3 spades and a hand weaker than game forcing, since double is takeout and implies support for the unbid suits. Partner is stuck when he holds a strong hand wanting to make a penalty double.

I use the doubleton double in a lot of two level auctions. We simply have to compete and we can't get shut out by something as simple to handle as a 2 level overcall. To do it requires the discipline of doubling when you hold 2 trumps and let the points take care of themselves.

So yeah, it's not the same. So what. You have to compete.
May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's why it's in the notes.

I disagree on partner passing in tempo having reopening be wrong. I expect partner to pass in tempo. His huddle on this hand was silly, he had no bid. Had he passed in tempo, double would still be right. Removed text that offended Michael.
May 23
John Adams edited this comment May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Surely partner hoped I could bid 5 over the expected 4.
May 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Repeating for emphasis. A weak 2 bidder can't force partner to do anything.

He has whatever he wants for a 4 call. That's his business. He may have gambled a forcing call hoping to get me involved when they bid the expected 4. I see no reason to hang him for his gamble.

I agree that he bid 4 to solicit our assistance. That assistance is best given by describing my hand.

Pass - bad offense, bad defense. That's what I have.
May 23
John Adams edited this comment May 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I once made a game forcing 4 call on an auction where we had set hearts as trumps and the opps were bidding spades. When my LHOs 4 call came back around to me, I let him play it there.

Apparently he thought as you did… that there is some law against passing having created a game force.

I can't see needed a “pass and pull” sequence. Pass and pull is how forcing pass gains a step. In the absence of that step, a natural meaning of pass is best.
May 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kieran, nice argument for barring any bid, but I don't buy it.
May 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, You are assume the same field = the same peer group. That's fine. I don't assume that.

Frankly I can't tell what you are arguing for since I can't sort between your sarcasm and your arguments.

Are you arguing opener must pass? Opener must make the normal systemic bid? Opener can't double but can bid 3? I have no idea where you ended up.

Where I am right now is that opener can't double without some sort of notes showing a firm agreement. (based on the polls, table results, whatever), but I am undecided on 3. Would love to hear a serious opinion on allowing 3 or not, assuming that 3 was not a logical alternative suggested by the huddle.
May 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Stu, It's all we have to go on right now.

That such a feeble portion selected it is evidence that a significant portion did not “Seriously” consider it. The actual law:

“A logical alternative action is one that,
among the class of players in question and
using the methods of the partnership, would
be given serious consideration by a significant
proportion of such players, of whom it is
judged some might select it.”

So we create a poll and if too few select it, we assume that consideration was not serious enough. I give consideration to a ton of bids I think are silly. That does not make it serious consideration. For it to be serious, I'd have to do it some of the time.
May 23
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 576 577 578 579
.

Bottom Home Top