Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 201 202 203 204
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not so sure - if there was UI then a player could not choose from logical alternatives one that was demonstrably suggested by the said UI - thus reducing his chances of getting to the right contract. In the current wording you have greater latitude - e.g. if 75% of people would do what you did then that is now OK whereas with UI it would be proscribed.

(It also means of course that there is less (if not no) chance of receiving a PP for deliberate abuse of UI but since no one issues those anyway (it appears) the point is moot.)
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Quick example - you bid 5 1430 Roman keycard so you have zero or three Key Cards. Unfortunately your RHO bid 5 as a sacrifice in front of you. 5 is not accepted.

You now replace your 5 with a double (DOPI) showing zero key cards. A call showing 0 key cards is a subset of a call showing 0 or 3 key cards and is therefore comparable (and incidently is one of the few occasions when you are allowed to replace an insufficient bid with a double).
9 hours ago
John Portwood edited this comment 8 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sometimes players want to get feedback on why the appeal went against them. However, as someone once said, it is inevitably a mistake to theorise before you have evidence.

If the Double, by the partnership agreement, shows cards over and above those shown by the redouble (and 14 HCP is at least a King over the usual redouble requirement) then it is not a ‘penalty’ double per se - and that is the information that people polled as East should be given (as well as then asking what a pause could mean).

If the East players are given the incorrect information as to the meaning of West's double then the poll results are inaccurate.
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But law 27 deals with an insufficient bid, not a call out of turn.
12 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your hand does not have to match the comparable call you make, by the way - and partner can make allowances for this (Since there is no UI from the withdrawn call, you could even have an agreement!). If you get to the correct contract then there is no adjustment. (Correct contract meaning the same contract you would have got to without the infraction)

Pass: totally comparable

1: not comparable - some hands would respond 1 spade that would not have passed (If your system limited the range of 1 to 11 or fewer points then it would be comparable).

Forcing 1NT: Only comparable if it excludes hands of a decent 11 points or more, where you would open the bidding.

2,3,3 (invitational jump shifts, fit denying without competition): only comparable if they are only made on hands that do not have the strength to open.

NB in the comments below ‘allow’ = without silencing partner for one round.

2,3(limit raise), but not 4 (preemptive)** :
2, 3 or 4

2 : certainly
3 : I would allow it (being generous), but would be prepared to adjust if the information it could not be an opening hand resulted in a (non-making) game being missed.

(If you bid 2 and partner makes a game attempr because you could be stronger and game does make then there would be no adjustment since you have got to game despite the infraction, not with the assistance of it)

4 : Again - assuming you do not pre-empt with opening values - I would allow the call.

3 - unidentified splinter with 10-12 HCP *** : Not comparable assuming you would open on 12 and most 11 point hands with singletons. If you would only open on 12 point hands then this call could be comparable since the overlap (10-11) is greater than the non-overlap (12)

Any bid that includes hands you would not open: Not comparable in general, since it includes hands where you would open (see above for possible exceptions where the only opening bids are very limited)

Only bids that deny all possible openings: Again, see above
17 hours ago
John Portwood edited this comment 14 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 74A2 might come into play

2. A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.

Since it appeared you deliberately tried to confuse the opponents.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Explicit agreements that psychic calls are expected, or providing systemic protection for them, are classified as Brown Sticker. One example of the kind is when, third in hand at favourable vulnerability, a player is expected to open the bidding on anything at all.” - WBF.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can't see how EW can impose on NS a different agreement from the one they actually hold. From the looks of it North has the decision on whether to bid 6NT or 5NT - and his pause suggests he was contemplating bidding 6NT. The UI therefore does not demonstrably suggest passing.
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A little known law states that you must look at your hand before making a call. 7b2
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Not exactly Solomonic”

What on earth happened to the PP for NS for not calling the director before correcting the information? It seems there is a partnership understanding.

So I suppose you poll and ask “South's 1 Club bid is described as ‘showing a sound opening, not necessarily a club suit, other suit bids at the one level are weak but natural’. What would you lead?”

Even if West's statement is not regarded as being self-serving, then it would appear a weighted result is the best that EW could get.

(The bid is illegal at EBU level 4 BTW unless ‘sound’ == ‘strong’)
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In Summary: freak hands have their own rules. (You can't have an agreement on freak hands)

Now all we have to do is define a ‘freak hand’.
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is that in addition to the 16|| 12+5?
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So that's another disciplinary penalty under BB@B then.

(“No one likes the Secretary Bird” - V. Mollo)
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We tried that not so long ago - the unlamented ER25.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes! You can agree that 2 shows a strong hand, or game forcing/ natural (but may not be strong) in clubs. (subject to proper disclosure)

If the partnership agreement is that all hands must be strong then RR has been given the correct explanation and there is no correction. It is perfectly possible that the agreement is of the form “8 playing tricks, not necessarilly strong unless the suit is clubs” - which is a legal agreement under the EBU level 4 system. In which case we do NOT have a case of illegal agreement (which it appears the director applied to get the +3-3 IMP resul), we have one of misinformation.

And if we have misinformation the final result is unlikely to be +3-3 imps (unless the director decides that the results are numerous or not obvious). It will be based on allocating some of NS -800, -1100 and -1440 and imping that. (A pp may also be issued of 3 imps if desired).
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually you can't! The problem is that if the suit is clubs then the hand must be ‘strong’ by agreement. So you can't agree to open 2 on

S -
H -
D -
C AKQJT98765432

if the suit is unspecififed, because it is the suit that is called. You can agree to open 2 on

S AKQJT98765432
H -
D -
C -

Since that is NOT the suit that has been called.

The whole point is that when players use the word ‘strong’ then the very use of the word puts off opponents from calling (as here!)

The hand itself is a legitimate (Benji) 2 opening bid since it will (and does) show hearts.

If the opponents have an agreement that 2 will always show a strong hand then there is no problem (provided partner doesn't innocently say that they, too, would have opened the hand 2!)

It looks like JJ didn't ascertain the full meaning of the opponent's system.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True - but it still isn't “must carefully avoid taking any advantage”.
Dec. 4
John Portwood edited this comment Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And waht would they open with

J
K5
AQJ765
QJ65

or the equivalent?
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ok - West clearly hasn't carefully avoided taking advantage of the Unauthorised information. He has a club fit with his partner's natural club suit (and only 1 spade loser). I am using this law (73C) since it may be hard to show that 5 is demonstrably suggested by the UI.

(OK I poll but this seems self-evident). Note that the call you make does not have to be a logical alternative these days (in theory it used to be, but the argument was that for anyone who makes a call, that call must be a logical alternative for that class of player).

(You can penalise someone for breach of LAw 73C even if there is no damage)
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Believe it or not - sometimes when a player opens 1 they actually hold diamonds! (I mean it is rare these days - about the only suit that is ever bid naturally is spades - and even then only about half the time.)
Dec. 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 201 202 203 204
.

Bottom Home Top