Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Torrey
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 15 16 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East played the jack at trick 1.

West was the director and East was the guaranteed partner (not an experienced player). It was the first round, and North-South could have heard them agree to play DONT (but can't be assumed to be paying attention to that discussion).
Sept. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My original error, now corrected. Good catch, Gary. Sorry, others who answered.
May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner had

AT2
KJTx
JT9x
xx

The low-heart leaders have it right. When the hand was played, your hand actually returned a diamond, then discarded the two low hearts on the run of the clubs, allowing the contract to make.

Some comments note that if declarer has a major ace then the defense needs to lead that suit. Quite so! Partner's discard shows awareness of this.

Waiting to win the third club was probably a good thing, allowing partner to make a useful signal.

I don't regard this as a challenging problem, but I think it is a good illustration of the possibilities and issues in cooperative defense.
May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Right! And if Eash had QJ instead, it would be right to lead the Q before the fourth spade, for the same reason.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The information about scoring method would probably be relevant (but only to a human?). It was BBO's Just Play Bridge, where there is no comparison to other tables and the objective as far as I can tell is to accumulate raw net points as rapidly as possible.

I was West and decided that I was more interested in what the robot East would do if left on play than I was in making sure of setting 2NT. My reward was the chance to post this poll.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Max, but I have to admit that I would not penalize West even if I suspected cleverness.
April 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Suppose West calls the Director. Away from the table, he asks whether he is permitted to ask partner if his bid was intended. The Director says, “No.” When they return to the table, East says that he intended to bid 4.

The Director should allow the correction. Is a penalty warranted against West?
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The March ACBL Bulletin has an article promoting Active Ethics. If Active Ethics are optional, we should not need such an article.

The first point of the article advocates the principle of full disclosure. This is required and therefore not part of Active Ethics. The article also advocates a friendly demeanor and a good pace of play, which are also part of the Laws. The only non-Law item is the paragraph advising us that players who have not nailed down all their agreements are not Actively Ethical.

The presence of this article in the Bulletin would seem to put a taint on players who practice ethical play according to the Laws.
April 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with Ed on South's comment. In addition, South's bid is questionable. What was he sacrificing against?
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know the NS pair. They are steady but not tricky, and I absolutely believe their statement about playing high-low with two, and why they did so.
April 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I sell designated entries and this avoids having to move the 1NS and 2NS that were sold early in the process to pairs that wanted a stationary entry.”

Translation:

I sell 1NS and 2NS to early arrivers who do not want to move, or cannot. If I have a hesitation movement with 1 as the pivot and 2 as the phantom, 1NS is a moving pair and 2NS is a phantom, so I will have to move the original 1NS and 2NS pairs to other (stationary) locations, and find a NS pair for table 1 who will be able to move. Having table N-1 as the pivot and N as the phantom, I just have to ask the late-arriving NS pair at N-1 to move, and table N is probably already a half table.

In the original sentence, “to pairs that…” was intended to modify “sold” and not “move”. Maybe a comma after “process” would have helped. Probably not.
April 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My club likes plenty of boards. I use the Hesitation Mitchell for 7.5 tables (27/24 boards played instead of 24/21). I prefer to have 7 the pivot and 8 the phantom NS (to eliminate the relay). I sell designated entries and this avoids having to move the 1NS and 2NS that were sold early in the process to pairs that wanted a stationary entry.

The 12-table Hesitation is good for 11.5 tables (26/24 boards played instead of 24/22). Again, I prefer 11 for the pivot and 12 the phantom NS. For exactly 12 I use a Blackpool to avoid the 2-board relay. It's technically imperfect but practical.

I've tried the weave Mitchell for 12 but found it confusing for the players. It did get some laughs.
April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“You elect to cash clubs.” I think you meant to say, spades.
April 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Keith - my problem is not with the number of average + assignments, but with the number of unplayed boards with assigned scores, when none are necessary. Sometimes you can just fix the movement, and this happens - luckily - to be one of those times.
March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, are you really saying that it is better to assign 12 average- plus scores than to have a normal movement except that two board-sets are reversed in sequence? (I would put a pick-up slip in board 1 and board 28 saying that they are out of sequence and asking North to check board numbers on Bridgemate.) Fixing the movement means no assigned scores.
March 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry. Only swap after round 1. Yes, you have to tell players that boards are out of order.
March 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another and perhaps less disruptive solution is to swap boards 1-3 with boards 28-30 for the entire movement. This produces no conflicts; the only real problem is that 28-30 are played only 7 rounds. No pairs get artificial adjusted scores. The director must reassign the boards in ACBLscore using EdMove.
March 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On board 30 of the recent Vanderbilt final, Chip Martel opened 1NT (3rd seat, neither vul, 14-16 on other boards) on

J 5
7 2
A K J 9 5 2
K 10 2

I consider this a semi-psychic deviation and not an upgrade: I'd expect he might bid the same lacking the jack of spades. With all the caveats about experience creating agreement, I'd like to think that the new regs do not bar such deviations. This is consistent with Law 40C.

I do not think I understand the new regs as discussed above. If I tell my partner, “You can deviate on points or shape if you want, but I will always treat 1NT as 15-17 balanced and you have no way to correct that,” I hope we have a legal agreement. Discipline would be appropriate if I am found making allowances.

(Katz-Nickell did well to get to the excellent 4 Hearts on this board.)
March 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This may not be accurate, but I believe that if there are two events (say, open and limited) being scored by the Bridgemate system, the ranks and percents shown are for the combined scores, all in one big pot.
March 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you meant to say that *West* forgot the agreement.
Feb. 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 15 16 17
.

Bottom Home Top