Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Torrey
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 18 19 20 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The forcing 1NT is the problem case for me. The spirit of the comparable call law is to allow a real bridge result, but eliminate cases where the offenders gain some advantage from the offense. When the response is a forcing 1NT, the opener always assumes that the responding hand is not an opening bid…but there are still cases like

1 1NT
2 2

where the opener “knows” that the responder would not have opened 2 or 3. I have a bias towards real bridge results (so might allow the forcing 1NT as comparable at my club) but the correct ruling probably is to disallow it. A strict reading of the laws probably says to disallow it also because of the possible opening-strength hands, but I do not see how this possibility could lead to an advantage to the offenders.

If this problem did come up at my club and I did allow the 1NT forcing, I would tell the players that the ruling at a tournament could well be different, and explain my bias towards real versus artificial results.
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apart from the ruling, the dummy deserves a partnership demerit for putting the spades on his right.
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
See http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/New_Orleans_Fall03.pdf, Case 22. I was the floor director in this case, heard the spoken evidence, and found it very credible. The top directors would not even listen: only written evidence (from system notes in this case, because nobody would or could write this agreement on a convention card) would do. Sustained by the Committee, to (mostly) cheers from the commentators.

That was then, at a NABC, and this is now, at a club. Yes, the TD has to decide how much weight to give statements, and a club is different in that the TD probably knows the players and their history of credibility (and hates to tell regular, normally-honest customers that their statement has little weight). Even so I can't imagine basing a ruling on that statement, when a convention card is required and would have answered the question. (All that said, I should probably have abstained - as Ed did - when we do not have the hands. But I would consider MI to be present based on what we do know.)

I don't flog this frequently, but the suggestion in https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/a-modest-convention-disruption-proposal/ would apply here.
Dec. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Adjustment: There are (at least) two possible violations here: MI (misinformation) and UI (unauthorized information). We are still digesting the 2017 Laws, but 21B1(b) still says the the director should assume misinformation rather than mistaken bid. in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The convention card is the first place to look for such evidence, and it is…absent. Law 75 gives us more to think about. The new wrinkle - which probably applies here - is in Law 75D3: “If the Director determines that the call has no agreed meaning, he awards an adjusted score based on the likely outcome had the opponents been so informed.”

As noted above, West has UI, and this could come into play if we decide that North and South would not find their spade fit even with better information.

Procedural Penalty: I voted that it would be “appropriate.” It would be, but (as also noted above) I would probably not give the penalty in a club setting, but rather tell East and West that regulations require them to have two identical convention cards, and that they could expect a penalty in a tournament setting.
Nov. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Format problem. If I bid 4NT I need to have answers for 5, 5, 5 and 5 responses, but can't do that.
Nov. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The hand needs another card.
Nov. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm a diamond leader, but Lead Captain says that the best lead is the spade ace, with the queen second. Close on set percent (A 23.9, 7 22.7), not so close on avg tricks (4.14 to 3.40).
Nov. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I run a twice-a-week afternoon club duplicate in the Durham/Chapel Hill NC area, in a full-time bridge center that can house 50+ tables. Several years back, Valerie Roberts (one of our local teachers) asked my club to host a novice game once a week for her students and other novices. (My open games are running 8 or so tables per session.) When the novice game faltered last year, Valerie and another player, Andrea Roitman, volunteered to teach half-hour lessons before the games. (Andrea has done great things at her retirement community: games with mostly beginners that draw 10+ tables.)

The lessons created a revival, but it's been hard to get the 3+ tables needed to have a separate game. It's a good group of people, who get along well; we do not have a “duplicate players are nasty” problem. When they merge with the open game, frequently one novice pair will grab an A-strat award, but many struggle. (The open C-strat can go to 2000 masterpoints.) I duplicate a set of novice boards every week, but they are seldom used. Andrea and Valerie say they will keep doing lessons “forever.” My novice email list has about 35 addresses.

Our novice (actually, 0-500) players enjoy the game but are not passionate about it. Maybe the game fee ($11 per player, a necessity to pay the rent) is a problem for some.

Just a note for those who say, “Clubs should do more.”
Nov. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'll pass on the math quibbles.

One problem with whatever method is used is that we decide that a difference of .01 matchpoint is enough to break a tie. As I understand it, in the factoring method currently used a difference of .01 matchpoint is essentially created by rounding, and really represents no difference mathematically. Perhaps whatever method is “best” should round to .1 matchpoint, which would have a chance to reduce meaningless rank differences.

Perhaps my proposal is not the best, but the issue does need consideration.
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry. Dummy had the 9, not the 8.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I knew there was something I was missing. Phillip Martin (and others) has it right (thanks!). At the table I was blinded by reluctance to expose partner's spade holding, and later by resultism.

I had the problem and led a heart. Declarer had AQJ103, AQJ7, 8, J53, for whatever it is worth. We salvaged some matchpoints when declarer played for the drop in spades.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Covered above & withdrawn.
Nov. 4
John Torrey edited this comment Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my club board 23 was the most skewed, with no North-South score earning better than 33 instant matchpoints. Second was board 10 (NS top of 49). 13 and 17 were 56 and 58.
Nov. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My club played an 8-table relay/bye stand movement with 24 boards. The instant matchpoint average for all North-South pairs was 46.6 “percent”. I drafted a post wondering if others saw the same discrepancy.

Stuff happens. That's why clubs have “overall” winners for both directions in these games.
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ken is correct, thought the OP suggests that there was misinformation.

Perhaps I should flog my Modest Convention Disruption Proposal (https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/a-modest-convention-disruption-proposal/) more than the very few times I have. Under that proposal, mistakes in artificial 2-suit conventions would count as misinformation, even if mistaken bids.
Nov. 2
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry for the ATB framing. My friends were looking for help with the deal and I wanted comments on both hands. (Actually 4 is much better than 4, and harder to reach. Still not “cold” though.)
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do NOT claim to be the authority on comparable calls, but I do think that this situation is pretty clear. Double (as commonly played in ACBL land, showing hearts) would qualify as comparable. Auction proceeds with no penalties and no further restrictions.

I'm trying to work out what calls are not comparable to an opening pass out of turn…
Oct. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One reason for the “slip-of the finger” rule about bid boxes is that there was resistance when bid boxes were introduced.

I suspect that today you would find more support for eliminating the slip exemptions that now exist than for extending them to played cards. A card laid is a happy card.
Oct. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Both are competent but seldom really astute. (IMO. Players in this club get to know one another pretty well. The 2500-3000 in the setup suggests something like this, I think.) West was able to duck smoothly with Kx in clubs - a very good play for this level.

This pair would routinely open any 12 HCP hand, and routinely pass Kxx Kxx Q10 K10xxx.
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
West actually had Kx in clubs - and managed a nice smooth x when the small one was led.

I think the best line is to play the ace, as the bidding indicates West is 5-6-0-2, and that East does not have both the K and J of clubs (and thus, 12 HCP). If West is up to unblocking with Jx, they deserve to beat you.

Other good solution: double and lead the ace of spades, probably the indicated action.
Oct. 16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 18 19 20 21
.

Bottom Home Top