Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John D'Errico
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This should have been a poll, getting at whether East should have bid with that flat hand and giving the distribution away. At least make declarer work. ;-)
Nov. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So these hands should force to a grand?

AKxxx
AKxxx
xx
x

opposite

x
xx
AKxxx
AKxxx

Since both hands have 5 losers. In actual play you may be lucky to make a game, IF you make the right guesses. Yes, I'll admit that normal bidding will still see those hands end in some game, probably 3NT.

But on the above hands, you would start 2♢, partner needs to show their own LTC, and you are now starting out at the 3 level and nobody has even shown a single suit. Stopping anywhere low will be difficult at best.

I'd suggest it is better to start the bidding low. Now you will have an opportunity to show both suits even if your opponents do get in the way. Don't waste two levels of bidding just to announce you have a decent distributional hand.
Nov. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd bet that those who made 11 tricks had a Stayman sequence, showed hearts, then getting to 3NT. West chose not to lead a heart from the ratty suit, instead leading a spade. That gave declarer time to find 3 spade tricks, and helped them to find the jack. Duck a diamond for 11 tricks.
Nov. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David - great advice, and as a perfectionist myself, it does hit home.
Nov. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assuming you do mean the ACBL, my reading of all the charts, basic through open+ seem to disallow any natural NT bid with a range larger than 5 HCP. They are effective 11/22/18.

http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/about/181AttachmentD.pdf
Oct. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Please be specific. What jurisdiction? ACBL?
Oct. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Corey - I DO see it as a failure of management. They chose to set an NABC in one of the most expensive venues I can think of. That they could not negotiate lower rates in paradise is not pertinent. They chose to spend our dues on their junket to paradise, and now want us to bail them out. We are asked to pony up to stay at an expensive site to cover their overspending?

I'm retired, like a huge fraction of ACBL members. I'm living comfortably now because I wisely invested my savings over many years. Suppose one day, a distant cousin of mine knocked on my door, asking for a financial handout. There they are, wearing expensive clothes, having driven to my house in their Lamborghini. But even so, they claim to be on hard times. Yes, I imagine that a caviar and champagne diet is expensive. How hard do you think I would laugh in their faces?
Oct. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I do recognize that the defender should not be able to ask that question. But it seems that, preventing them from being able to resolve the matter now should also allow East to play in a reasonable manner, not play in an unreasonable way. Had West not won the trick, it seems illogical to force East to not play to win the trick if they would reasonably have done so.

To me, it seems that forcing East to commit suicide, because West made a correctible mistake seems wrong. West revoked, but then corrected the revoke. So give both East and West penalty cards.

And, yes, it seems this is contrary to the way the law was written. Not the last time the laws seem contrary to what seems reasonable. I can accept it. I just don't need to like it.
Oct. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My take, which in my opinion is just based on logic and the concept of restoration of equity, though perhaps not on the law itself…

Lets say that South leads the diamond jack. West has a small diamond, but for whatever reason, ruffs instead. Declarer has dummy pitch the club 3 (not trump). East, who has the A2 remaining in diamonds, seeing West ruff, plays the deuce.

West now realizes that he has the 3 of diamonds in his hand, and announces the revoke, playing that card, which no longer wins the trick.

To me, it seems that equity would say that East is now able to win the trick with the ace, even if the card played from dummy did not change. Yes, East should now be faced with a penalty card in the small diamond. So logically in my eyes, the concept of restoration of equity should allow East to change the card played to reflect what has actually happened at the table.

Again, all of this is just in the eyes of restoring what would normally have happened at the table. E-W would normally have won the trick, and should be allowed to do so, at only the cost of a penalty card.

To me, this would be different if West had now found the diamond queen, thus still winning the trick. Now East would arguably not be allowed to overtake with the ace, changing the card they had played.

Does the concept of restoration of equity apply only to the non-offending side? Does that apply to East, who is apparently not an offender in the matter?

Could East have resolved the entire matter, simply by immediately uttering the classic phrase “Having none partner?”
Oct. 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh boy! As an A player, I'd love to show up to play in that half table section. How does the movement work? 13 sit out rounds? Of course, they would be first in their section, so they would “win” A, and the ACBL would pay out master points. Just phone it in…

Of course, once you chase away that A pair from ever returning to the club, some other pair will now be relegated to the status of the dreaded “A” pair.
Oct. 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Every once in a while, I pick up a human dealt hand with 12 cards. The standard thing, is if the hand with 14 cards has not seen their hand, I take one of their cards at random, where I choose the card. Then I check to see what card I received. How can it be a deuce so often?
Oct. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So, would that have been a Franklinian slip?
Oct. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have some friends who like to get together, all four at a kitchen table, and play on BBO, with tablets. They can still talk with each other, so social interaction is no problem. But they get the advantages of alerts that are seen only by opponents. They get complete hand records for later discussion.

All are good friends, who frequently play together, so it is not an issue of trust at all.

It works quite well for them.
Oct. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When we played that board, partner also opened a 14+ to 17 1NT. North overcalled 2♡, natural. I was contemplating passing it out myself, opposite a possible 14 count if North had said nothing, but once 2♡ was in the mix, what to do?

Partner rags on me for not doubling enough at match points, so I did. -2 for +500 was worth 16/17 on our card. I checked, one pair did bid and make 3NT with an overtrick, against a pair who are known to defend erratically, so they may have been lucky in their choice of opponents. 4 other pairs E-W did manage to make 10 tricks in NT part scores. 10 pairs scored 7 or 8 tricks in NT partials - mostly in 2NT.

Anyway, in our club a NT part score making 9 tricks would have match-pointed around 11/17.
Oct. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East fell in love with his hand. Not like I've never done that before. But here, it was pretty much all East in my eyes.
Oct. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I tried to like this response twice, but that just makes it a null-like. So assume I've liked it an odd number of times n, for odd n>1.
Sept. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, is that a snarkish reference? Let me count, did he say so 3 times?
Sept. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you agree that East can open this hand in third seat, as long as they have distribution, then you are agreeing to psych on some specific hand types. After all, your statement is that:

“East avoids opening without distribution.”

This sounds like the start of an agreement about when to psych to me.

Sorry, but all of this feels like you are trying to skirt the boundaries of what is legal, and you are trying to determine exactly how far you can push things, what you can get away with. It is a bit of a slippery slope.

As far as N-S not being able to find their heart fit, I cannot imagine not making a TO double with the South hand after 1♣.
Sept. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yup.

Or just consider two players, both ACBL members, having lived here all their lives. A is seriously good, but plays relatively little, due to work considerations. B plays a LOT, is ok, but has 10x as many monster points as A. Playing a lot does that. Surely A should be assigned additional points to reflect the disparity in skill? If not, then what justifies doing just that for visiting players from other countries?
Sept. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you pass, suppose North passes the double of 2♠. Now East must surely bid, but East now has options, in showing where their strength lies with a maximum hand if they can bid below 3♡. So I might argue that 3♡ is weaker than pass here. It tells partner that you are uninterested in game because it removes any chance for partner to tuck in a bid below 3♡. Even if North bids 3♠ in front of partner, your pass should be a cooperative signal to partner that you would have been interested in game. My take, at least.

Given the minor suit quacks, I'd just bid 3♡, and as Richard says, it also takes away bidding room from your opponents.
Sept. 15, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top