Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
1 2 3 4 ... 110 111 112 113
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am a convert (of course if Directors would implement the law then the average score in a duplicate tournament would be well under 50%.)
9 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner has a rock-solid 4-diamond call - 1-6-4-2 with KQ and Q (at least I thought I had) - 10 trumps = 4-level.

(You're not going to get a good score anyway now since 4 was bid at many tables.)
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And in the meantime we have the poor pair who arrived late at the table told to make themselves scarce until the board is completed.
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course all this changes very soon. (It is one of the major changes)
June 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You had better - you can't award a split decision in this case unless the NOS have taken a wild or gambling action. (There is obviously no ‘serious error unrelated to the infraction’)
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well I was looking up Flannery on Wikipedia, to find out what should have happened. I don't like the 3 call UNLESS it is demonstrably much better than playing in 2 e.g. with a 3=0=6=4 (assuming the 2 was a weak 2 in diamonds). If that is the case then responder is allowed to know that partner has made an anti-system bid and try and interpret it as he will. (But he should alert as ‘no partnership agreement’, rather than ‘I assume he has forgotten the system’)
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why didn't the Director allow your partner to change his bid? Since you hadn't passed then he should have been afforded the opportunity.

Whilst it is inevitably a mistake to theorise before you have complete information, you start wondering what a 3 call means - 2 is, I understand, ‘to play’ so presumably the 3 call is an example of “unauthorised panic”. After all suppose the bidding had gone

“2”: announced as a weak 2 in diamonds.
“2

Then the 2 caller is very unlikely to do anything other than pass (or maybe raise to 3 if a fit)

What we must not do is to assume that 3 is some sort of game invite showing a maximum hand, since we cannot impute upon a pair any ‘agreement’ that they do not have.

Of course we need to know partnership agreements since we are certainly into a law 75 situation (Misbid/ Misleading information).

Thus we eiher have:

The pair play Flannery: Opener forgot and was woken up by the explanation. Opponents have not been misled but we have UI.

The pair play weak 2: responder forgot and gave incorrect explanation. Opponents have been misled and we have UI.

The 4 call seems reasonable, however the TD has to decide whether NS would always bid 4 given the correct information and then the number of tricks.
June 20
John Portwood edited this comment June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't that Vienna?
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
EW gave North time to make a statement (fair play to them - they did not have to wait so long since the law says “at once”), so it is “at all possible” that North has forgotten the outstanding trump - te rest follows.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Alan - I believe that includes the order in which the cards are to be played - which is correct procedure. One down on a diamond ruff.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's a case where with 12 trumps missing the King, declarer led from dummy and when RHO showed out decided to let LHO take his “natural trump trick”.

This led to the bridge proverb “When there is 1 trump out - play for the drop”.
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You have 8 potential winning cards (KKA + 5) - that is rather a lot for a 1NT opening call

If the hand was
KXX KXX AXX AQXX, then I would agree with 1NT - this hand is MUCH stronger - give partner an Ace and nothing else and you have a 50% chance of 3NT.
June 16
John Portwood edited this comment June 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
50E1 and 50E4 (“The Lord Giveth and the Lord taketh away”), you have already mentioned.

ACs no doubt will find Law 75 rulings very common. I think you are going, in theory, to have to differentiate between cases where the caller “knew” they had an agreement, “thought” that they had an agreement or “hoped” they had an agreement. I wish you luck with that. Not alerting a misbid is not an infraction but AYWK misexplanation is the default.

If the 3 call hadn't been discussed then the OP has to alert that - even if they suspect the call is natural. This seems to be inevitable result of law 75. If it hasn't been discussed then there can be no agreement. (Yes I know there is likely to be additional UI, as there always is.)

If the 3 call has been discussed then the OP only alerts it if it is artificial (as defined) or has a potentially unexpected meaning.

The only real solution is to discuss pretty much all sequences and have general guidelines in place for unusual situations (which of course must be alerted - “we have no specific agreement but our general agreement is….”)
…………….

What did 3 show?: “Values and, by inference 5 hearts”
Have you discussed it with partner?: Not specifically

What did 3 show?: A club suit.
Have you discussed it specifically with partner?: No
Have you any agreements about new suits at the three level?

If “Yes” then the ruling is based on “Undiscussed specifically - but we have agreements that new suits at the three level are …2

if ”No“ then the ruling is based on ”Undiscussed"

I look forward to reading up the EBU appeals under the 2017 laws in the future.
June 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is no penalty if a side get to a good contract through bad bidding. i.e. “convention disruption” does not (yet) exist.

I assume “no agreement” means : the call was natural and that is what we play, rather than “we have no agreement what the call says” - have a look at the new Law 75

“It is an infraction to describe an agreement where the same mutual understanding does not exist.”

“If the director ascertains that the call has no agreed meaning, he awards an adjusted score based on the likely outcome had the opponents been so informed”

So it appears clear that there is no agreed meaning

Partner thought bid implied 5 hearts and said nothing about clubs
OP thought bid showed a club suit and said nothing about hearts.

So Director will (once the new laws have come into force) rule on what would happen if the the 3 call was alerted and described as “No partnership agreement”)
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Open any 11 point hand that contains an A or K”

Playing system of Barry Crane who, I believe earned more masterpoints (taking into account inflation) than anyone commenting on this site.
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At least we won't have to pay a tariff of 2.7% on playing cards imported from outside the EU into Britain.
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If there was a perfect defence to 1NT everyone would play it. The truth is - there are insufficient calls available to find a fit at the 2 level. Nearly everyone plays a system that can find suit agreement, albeit at the three level in many cases. It may be better to sacrifice some distributions to ensure that a fit is always found at the 2-level (assuming one exists).
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1) EW Note that South's opening call is not exactly endowed with high card points.
2) They know or suspect that the RA has rules about partnerships agreeing to open very light.
3) They call the Director to ask about the hand - as they are fully entitled to do so.
4) If the hand is legal - then no adjustment.
5) If the hand is illegal - the Director asks North whether they would open 1 Diamond with a hand like that.
6) North says “No - I expected a stronger hand” - no adjustment.
7) North says “It's a nice hand, good playing strength, yes I would” - Standard penalty for playing an illegal system.

8) The fact that North bid 2 (if natural) and South rebid his diamonds, is totally irrelevant.

QED

(The hand has 25 zar points (4+4+2 HCP, 10 Length, 5 (long-short)) so is just not quite strong enough to open on that system) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zar_Points
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The thing is - if you thought then declarer would spot the hesitation and assume NOT a singleton King. When you have a 50-50 decision to make, thinking is both pointless and dangerous.
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South's hand qualifies as an opening bid under EBU guidelines.

“A one-level opening bid in a suit, whether forcing or not, must by agreement show 8+ HCP and, in first and second position, follow the Rule of 18. Natural 1NT opening bids must show 9+ HCP.”

This looks like a pretty good 8 points - No wonder south said that “he liked his hand” - maybe he has a better understanding of bridge than the OP gave him credit.

And as for east saying “the game has been made into a lottery”, haven't ‘expert’ pairs been opening ever lighter to try and put of their opponents.

The only way that I would give anyone anything is if RA laws do not permit the opening of the South hand at the one level and NS have an agreement that South is allowed to do so. In that case I suspect that the ruling would be AV+ AV- in favour of NS - at least that is the EBU guidelines for playing an illegal convention. (EBU White book 2.8.3.3)
Why didn't East bid game with a 4-loser hand and a known fit? Didn't he trust his partner - and if so it is presumably because partner might be known to bid on very weak hands himself.
June 15
John Portwood edited this comment June 15
1 2 3 4 ... 110 111 112 113
.

Bottom Home Top