Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Torrey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK - more info. 3 would be a limit raise in diamonds (“criss-cross” as it's called here). 2 would be game forcing in theory: no exceptions have been discussed.

Meta-comment: If 3 would show this hand, I'd think the OP should say so. At the vulnerability I suppose this would not be a bad weak jump shift, so I probably should have mentioned the actual agreement. Really, I was wondering how much support 1 (my choice at the table) would get.
Sept. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some ACBL-centric questions:

What two numbers go with the letter O?

What color is section F?

What colors are used on ACBL card backs?

What colors are used for ACBL sections?

“Consecutive” ACBL player numbers typically differ by how much?

A 6-table Howell movement has 27 total boards. How many pairs do not change tables?
July 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What was on the NS convention card(s) regarding fourth suit forcing? If Nothing, you have a case. If either box (1 Round/Game) is checked, you do not. The fact that South has clubs does not give you a case.
July 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a good case for my Convention Disruption proposal (http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/a-modest-convention-disruption-proposal/). The case as it happened might reward (and create suspicion of) dishonesty in East-West, where under my Proposal we just adjust the contract to 3 and move on without rancor or suspicion. (I'd also consider a penalty for not having convention cards, but the motivation for penalty is less because the adjustment is automatic.)

As it is, I'm not sympathetic to East-West. They have the burden of proof that it was a misbid, and they did not meet that burden. Adjust to 3 and also impose a penalty for lack of convention cards, unless there are mitigating circumstances I don't know about; not bringing the printed ones is not an excuse.
July 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That ZT matters, regardless of the match result:

“If it is determined that the same offender is responsible for a second offense in the same event, then the offender(s) shall be ejected from future competition in that event. An offender removed from an event shall be deemed to have not played in the event, no masterpoints will be awarded and no refunds will be made… In the case of a serious offense and in the case of multiple offenses (three) during a tournament, a disciplinary committee may be convened to determine whether the offender(s) should be allowed to play in other events at the tournament and/or whether additional sanctions may be appropriate.” (ACBL ZT policy, article 3)
May 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I didn't say because West actually led his 5th best diamond (from KQ982). I think the auction (vul unfavorable for West, whose spades are weak) indicates 5-5 or 6-4 anyway.

I was declarer and took Kit's line initially. East won the king and returned a spade. won in the dummy. I led a club from dummy and East played low. I think the correct play here is the seven; the ten wins only when West started with 9x(x). But I played the 10 and went down when West showed out.

I'm not happy to be in this situation, so looking back I think I prefer leading a club to the seven at trick two, making when East has the 9 and the K or J or both.
May 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Opponents are new and temporary partners. West is a pro, East a high B player. They agreed to play Cappelletti but went no further.

It's matchpoints, but you need to make 3 if possible. (You probably would be making if West had led the K, for one thing.)
May 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Never sacrifice over 4 diamonds.
May 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My article was probably too optimistic about the problem of psyches. My proposal implies that a psyche of a two-suit convention would be treated as misinformation, and I really do not want to deprive Steve's team of its glorious psyche result.

I think I can convince myself that barring these specific psyches (as the ACBL bars psychic conventional opening bids) is worth the benefit, but I will regret the loss. (See “Launch Time” by August Boehm in the 1982 Bridge World for an entertaining look at similar ideas.)

I do not know that “I know it when I see it” (which I think is intended to allow psyches of bids that would otherwise be misinformation in my proposal) is a remedy for the problem. Possible committee dialog:

Defendant: It was a psyche - honest!
Committee member: Really? Have you ever done this before?
May 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What is the infraction here? I don't think I see one.

Maybe NS owed EW a notification of very-light openings: the auction seems to support this. If so, I see no damage from MI on this hand, and there is no suggestion of UI.

The auction is also consistent with NS being (possibly very young and) undisciplined.
March 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I expect that many may open 3 holding only six clubs, under suitable conditions. In your system that's out. Maybe not a big deal, but there it is.
March 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The trouble is (to this excessively literal-minded person) that I do not know whether Yes means I bid 4 or not. The question asks, Do I do A or do I do B? Yes, I do!
Feb. 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It can't be right to look at a bidder's hand to determine her intent, and then require her partner to divine that same intent in answering a question. All the partner can or should do is to describe their agreements (explicit or implicit). Yes, he should have said that there was no agreement, but that was already obvious.

West asked the wrong question and we can't expect North to call the director before answering. No adjustment.
Jan. 27, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was South and found the “creative” play of the jack of hearts from my hand (out of turn) at trick 2. East had Qxx
and accepted the lead at roughly the speed of light. Making 6. Michael's line would have worked for 6 (as would others suggested).

The board was played 9 times. One NS (where South opened 1 to prepare a reverse) played 6 making seven; two played heart games making six, one made five, four made four and one went down one in four. East had

KQx
Qxx
J10x
8xxx

If the alternative to North's 3-card-limit approach is a simple raise (which is true in our simple partnership) then I like the limit raise.
Jan. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not advocating for this, but in the actual auction the 4 call was understood by both bidders to show a 3-card limit raise. 3 would have been a 2-card preference, like 2 after 2. (I don't think you can use 3 as the limit raise, and anything else gets complex. This is a once-a-month, casual partnership; at least they both knew what their bids meant.)
Jan. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think Jim will advance the J and see if they want to win it. That's why he had “force” in quotes and was hoping it would not hold.
Jan. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fortunately (?), this is only a problem for people who are not aware of it. I wrote the number on the form I used, and I can write the numbers on the ones I still have. It's the people who do not know that will have (possibly difficult-to-solve) problems.
Jan. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I take long enough to decide, I can play either.
Jan. 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about Zircon?
Jan. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is no evidence of a partnership agreement, other than the auction. The text says there “apparently” is an agreement
Jan. 4, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top