Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is it mandatory? - I can't find anywhere where that is the case, unless attention is drawn to the OLOOT.

Even if people note that the opening lead was out of turn - they have to do something to draw attention to it!
March 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you do want dummy to be faced early, try throwing a sweet wrapper or something onto the table. If dummy wants to get away from the table quickly they may instinctively lay down the hand. (Happened once and won a team the match).
March 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not necessarily - he might have liked the lead e.g into a tenace and so forced declarer to accept it, whereas had the lead come from the correct defender it might have risked the contract.

Hence law 23.
March 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In England any defence to 1NT is allowed so ‘maybe Landy, maybe clubs’ is perfectly legal - PROVIDING a full description is given by the partner.

TDs often get the following.

1N - P - 2D (announced as Hearts) - P
2H - P - 3D - P
P - P

Where often the outcome is that 3 is declared to be game inviting in Hearts with Diamond values - and the 1NT bidder then plays 4 doubled -4 or so.

SO

1N - 2C (Landy) - P - 2S
P - 3C should be a game try in Spades
March 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Any bid has inferences - in this case partner's bid was not intended as a warning it was bid as a further sacrifice.

On

XX
X
AJX
KQTXXXX

(I would have opened the hand with 5)

-850 did not trouble the scorers - mind you -650 was a well below average score, so you were booked for a poor score whatever.
March 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 23

Whenever an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side he shall require the play to continue. He awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.

Note that IMHO the irregularity is facing dummy before dealer is advised of his options.
March 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 54C

If declarer could have seen any of dummy's cards he must accept the lead.

Look at Law 11.

A) The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director.

B) Even after the right to rectification has been forfeited under this Law the Director may assess a procedural penalty.

If this applies then NS get nothing, the lead is accepted and, if the Director decides that dummy was trying to gain an unfair advantage impose a penalty on NS.

The procedure on being called for a lead out of turn is complex.

1) Was the lead out of turn? (e.g. the correct declarer is not the putative one) - If not - carry on.

2) Was the leader told by declarer or dummy that it was their lead? If so - 47E applies, card is withdrawn without penalty (and no UI 16D1 as a non-offending side) and the correct lead is made. (Providing dummy has not spread the hand)

3) Did declarer begin to face his hand? If so he becomes dummy and there is no further rectification - 54A

4 Otherwise the Declarer is advised of his options (9B2): being

a) Accept the lead and play the hand as declarer - dummy goes down as usual.(54B)

b) Accept the lead and become dummy (54A)

c) Refuse to accept the lead (54D)and then the card is a major penalty card. (50)
i) require opponent to lead suit led - the card led out of turn is picked up.
ii) Forbid the suit to be led whilst opener is on lead - the card led out of turn is picked up.
iii) Allow any lead - the card remains a major penalty card. AND

1) declarer should be advised that he has these options whenever the partner of the opening leader is on lead

2) The opening leader should be advised that knowledge about the card exposed is unauthorised and they must carefully avoid taking any action based on that knowledge. (50E)

3) The opening leader should be advised that he cannot make any lead whilst partner has a penalty card without being told by declarer which option he wants.
March 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If it helps - I jumped to 4 on purpose to get them to bid 4 or 4 - so I could double them with the three defensive tricks. (And partner's opening hand of course) (We don't play unusual over unusual - or whatever)

So they bid 4 Yippee - partner bids 5 (drat) and they now bid 5.

So: do you double or is partner warning you of something?
March 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can I XXX - showing two playable places?
March 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes - I agree with the first.Law 16A3 Applies (No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous)) and Law 16C1 applies for you and your partner so you should call the TD (as always).

With regards to the LOLs - 16A3 applies again. Which then means that 16B applies for them.

Also agree with ruling on second hand.
March 10, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On the first hand it looks as if 7 (or 7) is making. (And partner is presumably allowed to know that you know that this is the position as the LOLs' statement is authorised.)

Against LOLs the best bid is surely 5 - to remove Blackwood and confuse matters. If partner should happen to have the black suits then things will be OK - if 7 happens to be on then the LOLs can't bid it.

(Why can't they bid it? Because they each have unauthorised information that their partner's hand was sorted.)

As to the second hand. I pass. With 6 spades out between partner and LHO, I would expect that the only reason why LHO hasn't raised to 4 is because he is sitting with a heart stack
March 9, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes - South must be wary of declarer using Diamonds as substitute trumps to counteract any force. Of ocurse declarer hasn't diamonds but South does not know that.
March 9, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 1 is precisionish then 3, if 1 natural then 2, if 1 is weak balanced or Clubs then 2.5 (toss a coin)

Once you decide to pre-empt, pre-empt to the max. The singleton Spade suggests that the opponents may have spades - lets see if East can bid them at the 3 level. Even if he does Spades reckon to split badly so you may find EW bidding to 4 going off.

1 : 3 : X : P
3 : P : ?
March 7, 2014
John Portwood edited this comment March 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Deep finesse says that the contract is unbeatable.

South has to play 10 or A when he wins a club. if he leads a spade and West does not cover then South can win by playing the Queen 6,4,3 but not the Ace or the 9. If he leads a diamond then he has to cash AQJ (throwing clubs) and then lead a Spade - but this time if West does not cover only a small spade will do.

If east wins he has either to give North the spade suit - if he leads A then he gets thrown in with the last heart to do the same. If east ducks, south plays a heart
March 7, 2014
John Portwood edited this comment March 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe - however if people have read the book they would probably agree that a doubleton of the suit bid by your partner would also be regarded as an excellent lead.
March 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oops - you've just trashed partners QX or JT
March 6, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Personally I don't think it matters - providing partner understands the bids made. (Cue 16B 20F, 21B and 12C)
March 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why not just have an ELO - style rating based on MP results? It would mirror the typical distributions found in results and each player would have a pretty good idea how good they are. So a rating of 50 is an average player, 60 a very good one and 65+ world class.

(It would also help players who don't spend every other week in State and Regional tournaments estimate their ability.)
March 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
HELO - 2nd Vs Weak: Meckwell otherwise
March 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry - I misread your OP.
Feb. 26, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top