Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mark Raphaelson
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 64 65 66 67
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm giving partner the benefit of the doubt, and he decided to open 2NT with a stiff honor.

K, AKTx, AQJTx, KQx
14 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 12 high with minimal shape should now be accepting invitations, I better start inviting with 14 counts opposite opening hands. A 1 opener promises a doubleton somewehere, so at what point do you not open 1? 10? 11 is a minimum and 12 is good enough to accept invitations?! Great, the honors are concentrated, but this is still a 7 loser hand.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's not overriding partner's decline. It's forcing game with a hand that has invitational values but game-going strength that didn't want partner to get excited by overbidding 2/1. I think it describes the hand well, and partner should work this out, not feel “overridden”.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
West is obviously blameless. East didn't do anything terrible, but I think with two aces, a singleton, and a known 9 card fit, pushing to game is worth it.
Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wouldn't a call comparable to an insufficient call be another insufficient call? :)
Feb. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This RHO seems confused in a lot of ways. Even IF she thought she was borrowing a 4 card rather than passing, why would she have assumed the auction was over?

And why would she put her hand down before she saw what CARD RHO has led? Or was she just preparing to put her hand down, and didn't actually do so.

In any event, if 3 people at the table thought it was a pass, and the other one didn't stop her partner from leading, I'm going to call it a pass.
Feb. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mason's comment and problems of this sort always get me thinking. Are you obligated to trust partner and therefore work it out, or do you lose your rights to play bridge if you trust the explanation given rather than what partner promised?
Jan. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“What seems to have happened here is that neither partner was aware of what's in the notes, and they had enough shared experience to interpret the 3♠ bid roughly as it was intended.”

This seems an odd conclusion when one thought it was preemptive and the other thought it was invitational.
Jan. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fwiw East created and updates the notes, and both players have played this system (with more than one person, including myself) for a couple of years, albeit once a week, so this obviously hasn't come up much. Im very surprised not only that they forgot it, but did so so spectacularly.
Jan. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm intrigued to find out which pair mis-remembered our system so badly (although I think I know). That said, I can confirm it is definitely a Lebensohl FORCING sequence, as the notes say. So while there is nothing you can do about being fixed by a misbid (even though I think there should be) I don't see how you can force declarer to make the bid as if he remembered his system (or we would end up helping declarer most of the time when he forgot). So it seems like since you found the double, you did the best you could do. I can't imagine this wasn't a very good board for you.
Jan. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Looks like declarer was pretty much given a choice of Spades and Diamonds and chose Diamonds. I don't like 4 spades here to be “are you sure” so I agree that it is a cue in Diamonds.
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The phrasing in the acbl alert procedure uses this language regarding the need to alert: “…opposing pair may be reasonably expected to understand”

Their usual murkiness leads me to conclude that whether to alert this or not depends on where you're playing. At the club, yes. In a top level KO, not so much.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the additional information Ray. I would also say that the Bridgewinners results may be 72/28 even if poll isn't slanted, but he full ACBL poll might just flip those numbers.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know I'm deep in the minority on this sort of thing, but even though it may be expert standard and standard on this board, I don't think this would be considered full disclosure to your average player. Which, I'm sure is one of the benefits of this “agreement”.

I would expect the average club player would be pretty upset to face a 9 point opener and a 3 point response and find that nothing inappropriate has happened.

IF it is fine to respond forcing NT with a zero count, the ACBL would do the majority if its membership a service and make it clear on the alert chart. The only reference to the 1NT overcall on the alert chart is:

“State “Forcing” if a 1NT response to a major is simply forcing”

with no mention of point range. Based on this half-explanation you could argue that I can play this bid a lot of ways and offer no alert, as long as it's forcing. If this were modified to “…a 1NT response to a major showing 0-12 HCP is simply forcing” I think this wouldn't even be a topic of conversation.

As it is, like with true psychs, I think it impossible not to know that partner does this on occasion, so while the OP was surprised at his partner's point count (this time) there is simply no way he will be AS surprised next time.

Some may disagree, but I don't think the agreement to respond with a forcing NT with a zero count qualifies as full disclosure under the current understanding most people have of the forcing NT system.

And while there is an excellent chance that the OPs opponents should have been in the auction (without seeing the hands, it is difficult to determine with 100% certainty), what I am 100% sure about is that most club players would be put off after seeing these hands taking all these bids with a COMBINED 12 count. So if we want to encourage players to play against the big boys and want to increase the base of bridge players out there, we need to do better at things like this and not say things like, “It's just bridge” and “they should know this is normal”. Instead we go the extra mile to disclose everything we know about our partner's tendencies if playing against people who we have good reason to believe would be surprised.

Rant over.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here's more truth: I used to not care about Master Points. I wish I didn't have to care about Master Points. The problem is that not having them is PREVENTING me from enjoying team bridge until the Sunday Swiss, much of the time.
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Other. It depends on the director call. In some more casual games, a lead out of turn is a friendly director call, and we all make fun of each other. If someone calls about a perceived unethical behavior, one call can be enough to suck the fun out of the game (or more accurately, the potentially unethical behavior sucked the fun out of the game and the director call was a result, not a cause.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“ As Michael says, create tentative brackets ranking teams by MP and then rebracket the teams based on existing Colorado Springs power ratings.”

Just for entertainment, I did look at the average Colorado Springs ratings for a bunch of teams.

In Bracket III
My Team: 59.418
Runner up: 55.348
3/4 Finalists: 57.130/55.040
Other teams with at least 3 rated players: 53.62/52.53/52.313

Bracket II Finalists:
Winner: 61.723
2nd: 58.34

Bracket 1 Winner:
63.206

I don't think the results are particularly surprising.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can't answer for them, obviously, but hypothetically they might be happy to get a potential client to the next round/more points. They might be able to maneuver the team to rest the top players to help them win later (which may be the only argument for the reduction in MP awards). They also might be interested in playing someone different, as I'm sure they are like everyone else and tire of playing the same teams over and over again. That angle might even be worse for them, since the Bracket I changes less than the others.

Also, if you are correct (and you might very well be), this argues for playing up, but not all the way up, because indeed it might be unfair to a top team who did want to play only other top teams.

Hopefully someone from that team will answer and let me know how far off base I am.
Jan. 16
Mark Raphaelson edited this comment Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I second Ray's motion.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No Jim. It's like saying i want to play in a bracket where if I play well, i can beat other playera of similar skill.
Jan. 15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 64 65 66 67
.

Bottom Home Top