Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Novice/ improver games are so slow, because they have to think about what to do. they don't have the experience.

At Durham we play an 18 board supervised session in something just over 2 1/2 hours (3 boards a round makes it quicker). Again - we had 6 1/2 tables and playing 6 rounds of a 7 round Mitchell makes life easier for them.

Even our intermediate session don't like playing non-Mitchells. I had 9 1/2 tables yesterday and, knowing the clientele, played 8 rounds of a 10 round Mitchell (24 of 30 boards), figuring it would be easier for them even though EW had to sit out 3 boards instead of two had I played a double hesitation Mitchell or a 3/4 Howell.
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is hard to see how a deliberate revoke and the creation of a penalty card (which has to be led)could work to the detriment of the non offending side.
Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
deleted
Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well it seems to be a case of Director Error (failing to advise that the J can be changed and if so that the 3 can be also - Law 62C)

So we apply law 82C

C. Director’s Error

If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non‐offending for that purpose.

So the question now is: “can the board be scored normally” and if not how do you treat “both sides as non-offending”?

No doubt I will be corrected but it seems to me that you have to rule that (for NS) they will find the correct defence part of the time. (Maybe 40%) and that (for EW) that NS will NOT find the correct defence most of the time e.g. 20%.

Other split weighted decisions are available.
Aug. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe because the 1 level bids are, to all intents and purposes, not limited like the 1NT bids are (witness the problem if you have to find a comparable call to natural No trump bid).

The use of an HCP method, again, is to make life easier for opponents and the range is more of an indication of aggressiveness in the player making a call rather than an absolute value.

In the EBU the rules are: 8+ HCP and obey the rule (in 1st and 2nd) of 18 (most tournaments).

We also evaluate opening suit bids differently. HCP play a far less important role than NT - key factors include shape. In NT the shape is less important - it must be ‘balanced’ (qualifications depend on RA) - so strength (usually evidenced by HCP) is the major variable.
Aug. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One reason why we have to declare a No trump Range is that the less experienced (walrus) players need something nice and simple to evaluate the hand.

Thus a weak No Trump hand should basically have (IMHO) four or 4.5 likely tricks in it. (cards that have a substantially above average chance of actually winning a trick. Increase that to 5/ 5.5 and you probably have a strong (15-17) No Trump hand.

However it is not easy to quantify (“likely to win a trick”)- we take into account good spot cards and honour-synergy.

Thus the simple stated range philosophy.
Aug. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And I suspect can't have 6 spades. Players who are sufficiently savvy to start using conventions are probably savvy to use weak 2 bids.
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East is at liberty to do so - but if it goes wrong he has no comeback. There is no law that says you have to deduce your opponents are having a bidding misunderstanding.

The director may have got the ruling wrong. First of all he has ruled misinformation (by giving the pass back) and then he has ruled no misinformation (by letting the result stand).
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lucky on the first board - I would rule 4 Spades down rather a lot! Or even 6 Hearts doubled down two.
Aug. 19
John Portwood edited this comment Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You may have problems in a large field if several denominations are played several times.

(I did a comparison between our score (53%) and the winners' score (65%) using your original scoring algorithm in a club event on Thursday. If I got it right, we lost 53 imps in 23 boards and the winners lost 51 imps in 21 boards).

Hand 1: Par : +420: Our score: +400 : Loss 20 = 1 imp Winners score -400 : Loss = 0
Hand 2: Par: -2220: Our score: -1440 : Loss 0 Winners score +1440 : Loss 780 =13 imps // 7NT makes
Hand 3: Par: -400: Our score: -120 : loss 0 Winners score -120 : Loss – 280: = 7 imps // 5C Makes

Hand 4: Par: -650: Our score: -620 : Loss 0 Winners score +500: Loss -120 = 3 imps // Accepted insufficient penalty
Hand 5: par: +460: Our score: +50 : Loss -410 = 9 imps Winners score +400: Loss = 0 // The massive club hand. You can make 5NT.
Hand 6: Par: -600: Our score: -130 : Loss 0 Winners score +130: Loss = -470 = 10 imps // Didn’t bid and make 3NT by North

Hand 7: Par: +1320: Our score: +720 : Loss 600 = 12 imps Winners score -690: Loss = 0 // we didn’t bid slam
Hand 8: Par: -100: Our score: -100 : Loss 0 Winners score +170: Loss = 0
Hand 9: par: 600: Our score: +140 : Loss 460 = 10 imps Winners score -140: Loss = 0 // We didn’t bid 3NT

Hand 10: Par: - 1330: Our Score -180 : Loss 0 Winners score -620: Loss = 0
Hand 11: Par: -130: Our score -50 : Loss 0 Winners score +50: Loss = 0
Hand 12: Par: -630: Our score -200 : Loss 0 Winners score -170: Loss = 0

Hand 13: Par: -1370: Our score -620 : Loss 0
Hand 14: Par: +130: Our score +120 : Loss 10= 0 imps
Hand 15: Par: +430: Our score +460 : Loss 0

Hand 16: Par: -400: Our score +200 : Loss 0 Winners score +100: Loss = 300 = 7 imps // Winners can make 3NT
Hand 17: Par: -980: Our Score -450 : Loss 0 Winners score +450: Loss =530 = 11 imps // Winners can make 6 Spades
Hand 18: Par: -140: Our Score 50% : Loss 0 Winners score +170: Loss = 0

Hand 19: Par: -130: Our Score +50 : Loss 0 Winners score +130: Loss 0
Hand 29: Par: -110: Our score +140 : Loss 0 Winners score +200: Loss 0
Hand 21: Par: -140: Our score -600 : Loss 480 = 10 imps Winners Score +600: Loss 0 // We let 3NT through

Hand 22: Par: -140: Our score -140 : Loss 0 Winners score -110 : Loss 0
Hand 23: Opar: +120: Our score +150 : Loss 0 Winners score +150: Loss 0
Hand 24: Par: +980: Our score +480 : Loss 500 = 11 imps Winners score -980: Loss 0 // We didn’t bid the slam

So our score on this basis is -53 imps
Winners score is -51 imps
Aug. 17
John Portwood edited this comment Aug. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At a certain level, it would not occur to defenders to underlead the Ace. The guideline - don't underlead an Ace against a suit contract - is pretty well hammered into players at an early age of their bridge development - and it is therefore often hard to spot the times when this can be broken.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe NS should work on their 2-suited overcalls. Even Playing CRASH/ CRO they would have found the double fit.

Oh but they play Michaels . . .
Aug. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am sure we all would like to play Bridge when we can buy the Ace of Hearts (Red Mana) for $20,000 (being price of MTG Alpha or Beta Black Lotus) - only to find the opponents hvae bought the two of trumps (Black Mana) for $10.00 which defeats it.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The laws do state that even if there is no damage a PP can be awarded for breach of UI.

Assuming that setting trumps and showing a good hand for the raise is demonstrably suggested by the BIT. The question is what would the logical alternatives be playing the methods of the partnership .

17 points, 1st round control in the enemy suit, 2nd round control in clubs and a Queen of diamonds that is now pulling its weight (partner looks to be 5-4 in the pointed suits - assuming they have a system to show 5-5).

Against that - if the slam needs the spade finesse then it is 100% going to be offside due to the bidding.

So I am not going to complain about the result , just that the TD didn't take any advice.

(anyone wonder why not just launch into RKCB - you get a 5 Club response (14) and know you are missing two key cards. End of story.)
Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is correct - however you still must ACT as though partner is responding to the call as you intended it to make.

Suppose the bidding went

1C P 1D P
1NT P P 2C (majors - not alerted)
2D 3C P ?

What does partner's 3C call mean. The UI suggests that partner is bidding a natural club suit (or supporting your own suit that you do not have) - so that you must carefully avoid taking advantage of it. Maybe partner has 4-4 in the majors and a hand sufficiently distributional to compete at the three level, and wants you to choose your better major?

Obviously you poll (with the 2C call alerted). Maybe some people will suggest that you bid your better major, maybe some people will suggest that 3C is a no trump probe showing a club stop and asking for 3NT with a diamond stop? You don't know without asking.

Not saying anything against the directors who were there at the time (and I am only a trainee), but where there is MI there is usually UI.

East is correct to say nothing about the conventional meaning until the end of the Auction - and then has a problem.

If they have misbid and know the partnership agreement is that 2C is natural then they need do nothing.

If they have misbid and realise that there is no partnership agreement then they have to call the director.

If they have made a correct call as per agreement then they have to call the director.

The problem is: they may not be aware that there is/ is not a partnership agreement.
Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No - because if the auction exceeds 3NT then you don't (in most circumstances) alert.

If you have an agreement that the call is natural then you don't alert. That is the only time you don't alert below 4. I assume you have a system file noting all calls below 4 that would require an alert.
Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I am sure you know, the EBU Blue book changed on 1st August. These are the pertinent paragraphs.

2 A 2 These regulations are secondary to the duty of full disclosure (Law 40A). If a player is uncertain whether the regulations require an alert, but believes it would help the opponents, he should alert. At the end of the auction the declaring side may offer additional information, even if not requested. In particular, they are encouraged to draw attention to any calls whose meaning the defending side have not asked about but may not expect. (revised 2019)

2 D 1 If a player’s hand is found to differ from the explanation his partner has given of a call, there are two possibilities (Law 75):
(a) Partner has given a correct statement of the partnership understanding but the player has misbid (or even psyched). The opponents are not entitled to any redress, although the TD should be called in case the explanation provided unauthorised information
(b) Partner has given an incorrect statement of the partnership understanding (including stating incorrectly that there is, or is not, any mutual agreement). If the opponents have been damaged by this they are entitled to redress.

2 D 5 If a player believes that it is possible that partner has misalerted or given a wrong explanation, he must call the TD and explain the situation at the appropriate time (Law 75B):
(a) If he becomes declarer or dummy, before the opening lead is selected; but
(b) If he becomes a defender, at the end of the hand, not earlier.
…..
So the ruling that there was no agreement seems to be correct. We now apply law 75D3

It is obviously up to the Directors to decide how the opponents would defend given the explanation “No partnership agreement”. Obviously the weighting should be sympathetic towards them acting on the correct explanation, but a 100% weighting on going two down seems a bit excessive.

NB they are enttitled to know that there is no agreement, they are NOT entitled to know that the 2 caller intended the call to show the majors.
Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My advice: if you don't need to know then ask randomly. Otherwise partner has UI that you do need to know at the time. Yes, he won't take advantage of it, but you prejudice his options by generating it.

Otherwise “I agree with Ed”.
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The cynical part is so often the case.

Regarding asking before your final pass - one advantage is that on review one of the opponents might realise that they have given misinformation. Now they don't have to tell you until after the final pass - but if they do then, because you haven't called, the TD can offer your partner the chance to amend their last call if they think it could have been affected by the MI. Once you have passed then only you will have this option when the MI comes out.

(If you make the opening lead face up then opponents may have little time to correct the MI - but that is up to the RA.)
Aug. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When it is your turn to make a play you can ask about what the calls mean (you can't ask for a review once you have played a card). Again there are UI considerations - and you can't ask solely to benefit your partner.
Aug. 4
.

Bottom Home Top