Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The only problem with that (and presumably why both players aren't given the option) is that if the other player is given the choice to take back their bid as well then they know what their partner would have done (with the incorrect information). Maybe that swings the pendulum too much the other way.

In this case, of course, North was asked their opinion before the play of the hand; however, as you say, they can make a cost-nothing declaration.

The other side will also be able to change their call (based on the other person's amended call) although as things stand they would not be able to make use of the two cancelled calls (Law 16C). (In some situations of course there may be UI as well however according to the OP in this case there wasn't).
Nov. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I was directing and the auction was over then I would ask (away from the table) since IMHO once the result is known of the hand then the player knows what the ‘best’ action would be. I think it would be better to find out what a player would do in the situation before they know what the result of their options is going to be. This IMHO makes any comments such as “I would have doubled” or “I would have bid 4” less self-serving. Although in this case the consensus seem to be that the statement by North is self-serving enough.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The board is found at https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/results-data/2019/tollemache-qualifier/TolleB1.txt It is board 39. Note that the Board appears twice.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Before the opening lead was made, I gather. I also understand that North thought they had 18 high card points! (Though I would be interested how that should be polled!)
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Who is showing the balanced hand? In my auction the partner of the doubler is showing a balanced hand. In your auction the partner of the 1NT bidder is showing the balanced hand. (OK he could double the 1NT bidder to also show a balanced hand - and then the doubler could redouble to also show a balanced hand commensurate with the TOD.)
Nov. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 - X - 1 (I have a balanced hand) - 1NT - I also have a balanced hand. Doesn't seem like the best plan, does it? By reducing the bidding level you not only help your partner you help your opponents - and there are two of them!
Nov. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“slimeball opponents can manipulate the situation to try and make sure that it does. ”

Law 10C

“3. When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select the most advantageous action.”
Nov. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A similar deal appears in one of Victor Mollo's Menagerie Books - I think it costs Papa a case of magnum vintage Champagne.
Nov. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But it defines how things can be the same.

An orange and an apple are similar.
A Granny Smith is a subset of an apple.
A letter and an e-mail have the same purpose.

All are comparable.
Nov. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
KXX QXX AJXX QXX is a bog standard weak no trump bid in England - so I would open it. I would also open XX AKXXX XXX AXX since I have a safe rebid. Now AXX XXXX KXX AXX is a different kettle of fish. I would like to open it, but would need some Ts and 9s before 1NT.

One way I look at it is: potential trick-taking/ assisting cards. KXX QXX AJXX QXX has 5 (with the Jack) XX AKXXX XXX AXX also has 5. AXX XXXX KXX AXX only has three. Note that the word isn't ‘clear cut’ or ‘likely’ or ‘playing tricks’ but ‘potential’. Yes you need help from partner (and vice versa) but you need straw before you can make bricks.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or similar, or have the same intent. However it looks as if my decision at the table was incorrect.
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it all depends on how ‘similar’ is ‘similar.’

1 = opening values and at least three clubs. No 5-card major
X = opening values and at least three clubs. 4 Card Spades.
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe not - but I did ask them.
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I might be persuaded that 3 (willing to play in 4 if that is partner's suit might be comparable in that it is similar to a 1 opening call (opening values + hearts). The only difference is that it probably only shows 4 hearts instead of 5 - but a 1 card difference is enough to make it similar.
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe East was wanting to go with you to the bar and get a double shot as well.

(As has been mentioned, the director has no power to prevent any call or play, just to adjudicate the results of said call or play if is an infraction.)
Nov. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can't tell the director (at the table)before the hand is played that you wouldn't have doubled had you known the correct information. That gives UI to partner.
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I mean it even has a club honour (optional but desired).
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well since the lead hadn't been faced the director could have given North their last call back - but that obviously isn't going to help.

The director's statement “There is no bridge reason to double in the first place” is manifestly incorrect.

As usual it is not what players have done with the wrong information, it is what they would do with the right information.

Even if double is inferior, making it is certainly not an extremely serious error unrelated to the infraction, nor is it a gambling action since at the time the player was unaware that an infraction had occurred (other than the incorrect announcement)
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It would appear that North's noticeable hesitation is showing some values - which makes it easier for South to compete to 3 Spades.

So we poll and find out what South would have done without the hesitation and with the correct explanation from North. i.e. what he expected North to say.

EW have no comeback for the MisBid - but may have for the UI. Obviously North has no UI (presumably although you can't discount South flinching - at least opponents didn't comment on South's reaction when North's announcement alerted him to his misbid - but regular partners can pick up tells.)
Nov. 1
John Portwood edited this comment Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hand is too weak for game - you should have at least 4 points to do so.
Oct. 31
.

Bottom Home Top