Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 164 165 166 167
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you are having a bidding sequence, bid 4NT and an opponent doubles (to show the Club Ace) then that would almost certainly be a legitimate reason to double. Whether it is alertable or not would be up to the RA. In the EBU the double would not be alertable. (From the Blue Book)

4 B 4 Calls above 3NT
Once the auction is above the level of 3NT, no calls are to be alerted except for:
(a) Artificial suit bids above 3NT made before the opening bidder’s second turn to call (i.e. the first bid and the next three calls)
e.g. 1 – pass – 4 (splinter) or pass – pass – 1 – pass – 4 (splinter). In both cases 4 is alerted
(b) Lead-directing passes
© Doubles or redoubles that are lead-directing but ask for the lead of a suit other than the suit doubled (or redoubled)
(d) Doubles and redoubles of no trump contracts that call for a specific suit to be led.
2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The director should get out the law book and read law 20F to the OP and his opponents.

F. Explanation of Calls
1. During the auction and before the final pass any player may request7, at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding. Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question. The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a supplementary question until his turn to call or play. Law 16 may apply and the Regulating Authority may establish regulations for written explanations.

The name of a convention is NEVER sufficient explanation. (Well hardly ever)

Note that Law 16 may apply means that if you do ask then you may be communicating information to your partner - but the same thing happens if you look at the convention car.
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This unlikely to be legal in the EBU at level 4 - Blue Book

7 B 3 1NT opening
1NT may be played as any one of the following
(i) Natural, non-forcing with a continuous defined range. A ‘natural’ 1NT opening has no more than nine cards in two suits, no void, and does not have seven hearts or seven spades. The range must be the same when holding a singleton
(ii) Any meaning or meanings as long as they all show a strong hand (16+ HCP or 12+ HCP with at least 5 controls)
(iii) *A three-suited hand (5440, 5431 or 4441), the shortage need not be specified
(iv) *Any meaning showing at least four cards in a specified suit, forcing or not

Since the bid is ‘forcing’.
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
yes - a weak-only multi is basically stupid. Instead of a bid saying “I have a weak hand with diamonds” - which helps partner, you get “I have a weak hand with one of two suits”, which is less helpful.

I play a multi in England with weak and strong options. It takes away some of the strain on the 2 bid. I also play Lucas (5,4+ weak) twos, to try and get into the auction as much as possible.
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You always make 11 tricks by ducking a diamond and a club. Either one of the three suits is 3-3 or someone is guarding two of them and can be squeezed. You probably don't even need DD declarer play.
Nov. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does that work if hearts are 3-3 as well?
Nov. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In this case, I think that the risk that a minor suit lead will help NS is one of the reasons, rather than that you will find partner with a great major suit.

In the book the authors do point out that the hands are played double dummy so that a spade/ heart lead won't cost as declarer will always get the 2-way finesse correct. This means that the score for the majors is a fraction too high.

Fpr further information the spade lead defeats the contract only 14.7% of the time and the heart lead only 13.2% of the time - which is consistent with the theory that high cards in the minor suits are worth less than those in the majors on a 1N - 3N contract.
Nov. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of the ‘extras’ in ‘animal crackers’ was a certain Helen Sobel Smith
Nov. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Brian Close recalls a bridge conversation with Ray Illingworth in “I don't bruise Easily”. They were playing for money and both were/are Yorkshiremen…
Nov. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the EU it is an offence to rate insurance differently depending on gender, (Which is a load of b***s)
Nov. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True - IIRC doesn't the author see some amusement in the story and is brought up short by the condemnation of the ‘people of the pack’?
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But what is your partnership understanding in such cases? If the agreement is ‘penalties’ then that is what you say. if it was ‘take-out’ then that is what you say ….. (omitting 20 other possible definitions)…. No partnership agreement.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Certainly having opened 1NT. I suspect a better definition would be: “Partner expects me to pass unless I have substantially more offence and less defence than I have hithertoo shown”.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Skid Simon said this 75 years ago.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If anyone hasn't read the book (surely not). Declarer leads a card from dummy and deliberately fans his face with the 2 (trumps). RHO sees the card, thinks it will be used to ruff and thus plays low.

Declarer then replaces the 2 with a card in the suit led.
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Except that it is up to the PLAYER who is ‘accused’ of providing UI that has to call the director if he disagrees.*

Hence the importance of asking straight away - it puts the onus on the ‘offenders’.

*(Unless the RA insists the TD is called)
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The trouble is not ‘waving’ the 2017 Bridge laws - it is ‘waiving’ them.
Nov. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would say it depends on whether you have a rebid to show a balanced hand at the appropriate level. I play 4CM in principle but will sometimes open 1N on 12-14 with a 5CM.
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That comes under the CoC, not the laws of bridge. Presumably one TD (don't know which) knew what the correction period was in that event.
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A few things to note. (I agree that prima facie the director should have applied law 69B)

if a claim is disputed and the TD called then doubtful points are awarded against the claimer -> this is the most favourable time for the other side. (Law 70)

If agreement is withdrawn then a trick is awarded if the side would ‘likely have won’ -> this is not so favourable, although there is no definition of ‘likely’ - I would say >50% (Law 69B)

If a concession is withdrawn then tricks are only awarded if they could not have been lost by any normal play. –> the least favourable. (Law 71)

Note that agreement to a claim is NOT a concession.
Nov. 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 164 165 166 167
.

Bottom Home Top