Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your agreement is that the double requests a lead of an unusual suit. That is what the opponents are entitled to know. If they make a misjudgement by running to an inferior contract then that is ‘just bridge’. I might be wrong but usually (not always) the Ace of trumps will take a trick.
April 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So you open 1 or 1 with a 3-card suit and possibly bid a 3 card or suit at the two level.

Pardon my ignorance but isn't the point of a system to show strength AND shape as quickly and cheaply as possible? To have to wait to the third round of bidding doesn;t exactly seem to fit those criteria.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Legally I don;t think so. Of course if you can quote the part of Law 20 that says you should explain your own call then I might agree. To quote Law 20F3.

3. Under 1 and 2 above a player may ask concerning a single call but Law 16B1 may apply.

(Yes he may ask about the auction in general - that is the recommended procedure - and then each player in turn will explain their partner's calls - but if you feel that your own call should be explained then you should call the director - it is in fact an infraction to explain your own call otherwise.)

In this case you would say “My partner's 1 bid showed…” once you have finished your explanation then your partner explains your 1NT call and then you explain your partner's 2 call.

But that is not what the opponents requested.
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Reading Law 20, it would seem that all that need be disclosed is “10-12 balanced, says nothing about hearts. If he had had 16+ he would have bid something else.”

Players have a duty to protect themselves if an auction seems unusual (although this is usually quoted in the case of misexplanation or unusual altert/ non-alert).

We try and get players to avoid saying “I am taking it as…” i.e. to get them to merely state partnership agreements for a specific call - is this any different?

A player has no recourse if they make a call or play based on their own misunderstanding. Surely it behoves a player to ensure that they do understand their opponent's calls. I mean the bids were alerted - which means

“A notification, whose form may be specified by the Regulating Authority, to the effect that opponents may be in need of an explanation.”

I fail to see why opponents should be protected if they don't make use of this notice".
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Terence Reese once said that the Lightner Double might not have been very effective - presumably because opponents can run if they diagnose the problem, that there might not be a second trick or that there is ambiguity in which suit is expected to be led.

(Skid Simon ‘Why you lose at bridge’ was all for it.)
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many years ago a book came out about a televised bridge match (“Grand Slam”) - in it was one great piece of advise.

“If your partner does something that you think is crass, then remember that he/ she probably had a reason”.

Partner's respopnse no doubt would be “Where was the hand you held during the auction” or “Since you opened the bidding I thought it likely the points were evenly divided, or that we maybe had more than the opponents and could not afford to sell out to 2 when the opponents had a fit and we, too had a fit.”

(if partner applied LOTT then he should have downgraded the total tricks. A nine-card fit requires the short-suit hand to be able to ruff a loser, and this doesn't happen in this case).
April 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suspect it will depend on the RA - The EBU regard Lightner Doubles as being alertable

“© Doubles or redoubles that are lead-directing but ask for the lead of a suit other than the suit doubled (or redoubled)”

I am pretty sure there is a famous case where a Lightner double wasn't alerted and something like 30 imps changed hands. “Did he want my wallet as well?”

Mind you the EBU expects experienced players to protect themselves and I hardly think that asking if a call is Lightner is going to pass much UI to partner.
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The human factor is important. It takes a dispassionate player to stop bidding when they have a fit and switch to defence.
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry - but NFL isn't ACBL.

the NFL rules may disallow appeals after the next play starts, but the laws of Bridge allow appeals (or reviews) during the ‘correction period’

Note that if the call were disallowed you wouldn't be defending 5X anyway.

Law 92 applies in bridge - not sure of the equivalent in the NFL

A. Contestant’s Right

A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the Director. Any such request, if deemed to lack merit, may be the subject of a sanction imposed by regulation.


B. Time of Appeal

The right to request or appeal a Director’s ruling expires 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection unless the Tournament Organizer has specified a different time period.
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even if you think you are not damaged, doesn't prevent you from being damaged. There is nothing in the laws to prevent someone asking for a director's ruling if they subsequently believe they have been damaged. (30 min after session ends except in exceptional circumstances)

The object of score adjustment is law 12

1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non‐offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists
when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
-390 is 8 imps away (-500 and +110)
+250 is 6 imps in (+140 and +110)

So you only need to be right 60% of the time (being ‘right’ also includes opponents not doubling/ misplaying defence etc)
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't one of the stories in “Right through the pack” one called “A trey wins by weight”? (The tale of the 3)
April 23
John Portwood edited this comment April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Those significant values might be about to take 4 three-off. There is no reason why south cannot hold KQXX in hearts for instance, for his 3NT call and his double. If North detects a BIT it suggests that South's assets aren't as good as they might be.
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North's call presumably the “I have the tricks, do you have a heart stop” version. South confirms it.

West bids 4 and South doubles it. Wouldn't you, holding AQX of hearts and partner promising tricks in the other suits.

So the question really is: is there a break in tempo for South's double. Any pause obviously suggests doubt that doubling is the correct course of action and thus that pulling is suggested.

It is obviously going to be difficult to poll. Equally a TD has to draw the line to decide whether there is in fact a BIT.
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We may be but probably are not.
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the opponents only have 7 trumps then partner would have 3 cards - so would be unlikely to make a TOD on a minimal hand.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If your teammates are -140 and you bring back -110 (quite likely defending a 2-level contract with 9 trumps), I think that is more than 1 or 2 imps.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't that then a ‘Law’ issue? Probably 9 trumps for NS and at least 8 for EW and no wasted values. Suggests at least one pair should go to the 3 level. You make 8, they make 9: even if doubled you lose 200 against 140 - not a disaster (would you double 3 in a part-score battle at teams?). They make 10 and bid it, you lose 500.

As it happens you make 10, they make 7 - so what? East's nice values merely confirm it is a part-score battle with fits. (East knows NS have a 9-card fit because they only have 3 and partner, with what must be a minimal TOD on the bidding, can only have 1 spade.)
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
West could have doubled first turn before he ‘knows’ what North holds.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would have thought AV+,AV- would be appropriate in these circumstances. One side has committed an iregularity and there is no director error. If the TD proceded then they could offer a weighted score as to the likely results e.g. if the NOS were probably going to get more than 60% then that score should be given.
April 22
.

Bottom Home Top