Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On diamond return - duck diamond. Win Ace if RHO has another diamond, finesse club into safe hand. Lose 2S, 1D, 1C?
Dec. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I make comments about ATB etc, I try and give my reasons: they are often ill-thought out and corrected, but I would never dream of insulting a player who made a low-percentage call, particularly at the table when with only one hand to look at and no benefit of hindsight. I am an above average player in the wide world of bridge - but here I am a novice.
Dec. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With the first part of your comment I agree (see elsewhere).

As to the last - Well maybe - but if the answer was “undiscussed”, I would hope that agreements in a similar situation would be declared. e.g. undiscussed, but if LHO hadn't doubled it would have been exclusion.
Dec. 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would have thought 9 points opposite a strong NT (15-17) was a pretty standard Invite. If you always invite on 9 points then ‘for the class of player’ passing is not a LA. In fact I would say that bidding 3NT is the call ‘demonstrablly suggested’ by the UI.
Dec. 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well the 1D
Dec. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What happened to reverse bidding? When West shows presumably a balanced hand East can see a clear source of tricks.
Dec. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a tremendous difference between agreeing to a claim for all the tricks and conceding the rest of the tricks. I would much rather opponents conceded the rest of the tricks rather than I claimed the rest. I will leave it to the interested student to find out why.
Dec. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suspect “Dear hearts and gentle people” is about to appear on this discussion.

At the moment your partner does not know you hold a strong hand (South could have several of your high cards); he can't hold more than 3 hearts and can't hold more than 10 points (and probably much less). Knowing your hand is offensive rather than defensive in nature also suggests that a penalty double is off the radar.

(There is, I suppose a remote chance he was considering doubling if an opponent is psyching, which is one reason why I asked in the comment above what people thought partner's call was suggesting.)

Obviously self-serving, but I think that the hand given is one that might pause: “we have a good minor fit but if partner is weak then we could easily go for 800 at the five-level, with no slam on for NS. Should I risk it?”

As for the ‘hypothetical’ comment - if opponents reserve their rights then the law expressly tells you to call the TD if you don't think that you have UI.
Dec. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“We play quickly because we prefer to make mistakes quickly rather than after a long thought” - Victor Mollo introducing BITM
Dec. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Basically, you have to decide whether, without the 2NT call, would NS have bid the Slam. If we decide that North had another series of calls available (but the first wasn't comparable), and NS would have got to 6 anyway then we do not adjust - even if South got assistance from the IB. (This is obviously if we allow West to have his cake and eat it too, IRO his own ‘rectification’.)

(Whether 4 is comparable to 2NT may well depend on the system the player uses. Many here would play it as pre-emptive with a weaker hand than shown by 2NT - but this may not be the case with this particular pair. Anyway we await WBF commnetary on the laws to see if they can expand on how they want law 23 to be implemented).
Dec. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The poll should be along the lines of:

“Your RHO opens 1 Heart: Amongst your conventions are Michaels showing a weak/ strong hand” (presumably) “What action, if any are you going to take?”

(if they don't bid 2 then thank them for their time)

“LHO raises the 1 call to 4 and this is passed round to you. What action do you take? Did you consider any other options? Suppose your partner paused for longer than expected - does that suggest anything about his hand or what he might have been thinking?”
Dec. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is it? I alwys find that my partner and my bidding system would cope better on the hands we weren't allowed to play than the ones we actually did play.

To give an example. Suppose we are the only pair in the club playing 10-12 no trump - and the hand in question is a straightforward 11-9-11-9, 4333 pointer (we holding the 11s).

The probable outcome of the board (for us) is 1NT making bit everyone else will pass it out. If we are having a 50% session then we get 50% for not playing it - as opposed to 100% being the probable outcome for the board had we been allowed to do so.

(As an aside ‘assigned’ means awarding actual scores as opposed to ‘artificial’ - meaning AV+-=) Artificial scores are further defined (AV=50%, AV+ is 60%+ and AV- is 40%-). It is extremely unlikely that awarding a ‘no play’ would result in these being met.
Dec. 10, 2018
John Portwood edited this comment Dec. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“So, then I decided to try ducking a trick to rectify the count. Again, more partners deserted me.”

Tale of the 3 - right through the pack?
Dec. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fit jumps only clarify the distribution fully for the side making the FJ. The partner knows whether there is a double fit or not. The opponents don't know whether their partner or the partner of the FJ bidder also has the suit. Obviously if the RHO doubles the FJ to show something good in the suit then that affects the odds - but you can't guarantee partner will be god enough to do so. (Playing Strength, not ability).
Dec. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just to clarify, Kit, we don't use ‘LAs’ to discuss what would happen since they only apply to Law 16 (UI), not 21 (MI). South has said that he would double 3 - no matter why. So we decide whether he would and if so how likely it is he would do so. Once that is decided we try and work out the possible results.
Dec. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is screens, so the wicket is probably just a bit green and not sticky (even if Derek Underwood is playing!)

Maybe I am a bit cautious, but aiming to play a 3-level (or 4-level!) contract on the South hand with such marvellous spot cards and fit for partner seems a bit self-serving.

There is also the possibility that West (with such good clubs) fielded the (to him) misbid.

We also seem to be assuming that East gave the correct partnership agreement.

So maybe South should have been told “Either a limit raise in diamonds or a fit jump”

For all those compaining about South's actions - it is not what he did with the incorrect information that matters (since almost certainly any serious error is related to the infraction) - it is whether he would do better with the correct.
Dec. 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In GO - sessions often end with a ‘sealed move’ the theory being that the player who has to start the next session doesn't have the extra time between sessions to plan their move, since it depends on an unknown move from the opponent.

(In practice the ‘sealed move’ is often a forcing one to which there is only one sensible reply, giving the person who made the sealed move the advantage).
Dec. 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The player who mistakingly alerts is passing misinformation by definition. 75D (amongst others)

1. Players are expected to disclose their partnership agreements accurately (see Law 20F1); failure to do so constitutes Misinformation.


Law 73C kicks in

1. When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any
advantage from that unauthorized information .

(Law 16B is UI from partner)

(I did mention the UI situation above - no one else seems to have discussed it).

The reason why there is no automatic adjustment is that East has no UI from West's bid (we may judge he has fielded it) - and so can do what he likes. For the contract to be adjusted to 3 we have to decide that West has UI (he has from the unexpected explanation) that demonstrably suggested pass (probably) and that 3 was a logical alternative - well it may well be,but that is for the TD to poll.
Dec. 8, 2018
John Portwood edited this comment Dec. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As ever - go to the lawbook. 16D (in part)

2. If the Director considers that the information would likely interfere with normal play he may, before any call has been made:

(a) adjust the players’ positions at the table, if the type of contest and scoring permit, so that the player with information about one hand will hold that hand;

(b) if the form of competition allows of it order the board redealt for those contestants;

© allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award an adjusted score if he judges that the extraneous information affected the result;

(d) award an adjusted score (for team play see Law 86B).

(a): In this case the TD could perhaps have placed himself in the position of the 3 caller, and presumably would have passed anything after the 3 call.

(b): not appropriate

(c ): action chosen

(d): I see no reason why AV+,AV cannot be awarded. The TD is only partly at fault - the player who acted after the BIT is surely also partly to blame (Law 12C)
Dec. 8, 2018
John Portwood edited this comment Dec. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How long did South take to pass the 5 call (or 4NT one)? That should be the time he took to pass the 7NT bid. (OK the board can be kept on the side for a few seconds after both players have called to reduce BITs AFAIK).
Dec. 6, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top