Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Rosenberg
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 261 262 263 264
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Usually WEAKER major is more appropriate. With (say) KJ and xxx a heart should be preferred. That's an extreme case, but would apply in lesser cases also.
14 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bernard Y: “Declarer gains no advantage by asking then, and loses nothing by waiting for his turn.”

If you'd actually read the 59 comments, I think you would see arguments proffered to both your statements.
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John A: If the person (Jay B) who stated that 1-1 is an “ugly auction” concedes they might be mistaken, then I'll answer your questions here.
17 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jay B: “ if I bid 2 with 4 I’ll always find the 4-4.”

Evin if that were true (and it's not - see below), what you WON'T do is clue partner in to the double fit (unless you have some special bid to show that after 1-2, 2. The partnership is better placed after 1-1, 2-3 (GF)

“If I do it with 5 it’s because I don’t want to play the 5-3 but can still find the 5-4. Qxxxx AKx Axx Ax id bid 2

And will you “ALWAYS” find the 5-4 fit? How about after 1-2(3)? Or even 1-2(2) - must partner “always” bid 2 with 4-card ?
April 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kieran: “Note that a double of 2C ”for the lead“ could work very poorly if they really have clubs and an inclination to play it redoubled.”

Note that, if you double for the lead, one of them might THINk the other has the inclination to play 2 redoubled - and play there by mistake.

I've seen that accident at least once. Your thing, not yet.

Jay: “ I use it to avoid ugly 1 1 auction when I have a heart fit…”

That auction is not “ugly” if you know how to handle it.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Andy B: That's news to me. I thought once you turned your card over, that trick was ‘gone’.
That seems a bit off, btw, unless it's your turn to play. You give partner a ruff and he's thinking, and you look at your card…
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On the assumption that 3+ is not alertable and 2+ is alertable.

If asking (with no alert) then doubling carries a different meaning than not asking then doubling, then there is a problem. One should either always ask or never ask - regardless of which hand-type one wants to bid with.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John A: “ If double of xx of clubs lead directing is so supperior, why not double of xxx of clubs be lead directing? ”

One must concede that 2+ covers a LOT more hands than 3+. “3+” (in standard) can only be fewer than 4 when precisely 3-4-3-3. “2+” (meaning 2red shows 5) can be fewer than 4 with 3-4-4-2. 2-4-4-3, 3-4-3-3 or 3-3-4-3.

And all I said was that I thought it “reasonable” to use the double over 2+ as L/D. I certainly was not advocating double being TO as unreasonable.
The only thing I was saying I thought unreasonable was Dave B.'s analogy of double of a nebulous 1m.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dave B: True. It doesn't alter my opinion that your ‘analogy’ to nebulous 1m opening is unreasonable.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jyri: That's because if people discuss the beautiful aspects of the game (especially card play) they risk looking stupid…
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rainer: “Let me ask you:
What do you do if an opponent asked what the contract is.

Would you tell him?”
Of course.

“Would that be an issue for you?”
Of course not

“Would you explain what the rules are in this case?”
No.

“Would you call the director?”
Of course not.

“Of course the rules are there to be followed, but a certain
generosity is not detrimental to the game.
Some seem to consider the rules as an additional weapon to get an advantage.”

While I might be ‘lax’ on enforcing rules I think should not exist, I have absolutely no negative attitude toward someone who ‘plays by the rules’. Indeed, I think having a negative attitude toward someone who does is ridiculous. I criticize the rule makers - not the rule enforcers.

So if somebody does not know the rule about whether declarer is entitled to know the contract, and calls the Director to check, I see nothing wrong with that.

On my list of questions to you (which you did not specifically answer), I would, if it doesn't obviously damage me, allow 5-8 - the illegal actions - to be taken back. I think the automatic penalties for these are all misguided - especially the revoke.

3 and 4 I would not allow - those are legal bids and plays.

(1) I would not give information about the bidding - you are supposed to remember that.

(2) is the rare case I am inconsistent. I feel they shouldn't ask but, when they do, I usually allow them to see the last trick (but it bothers me). I myself never ask to see the last trick once I have quitted my card.
Of course, when it's their own card, they often don't bother to ask - they just turn it over and look at it. I might complain verbally (again, inconsistent) but I'd never call the Director (well, maybe the 3rd time they did it after I'd complained twice verbally)
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dave B: “Do you play double of nebulous opening bids of 1 or Precision 1 as lead-directing?”

I don't think that analogy is reasonable. Over a nebulous 1m, your main goal is still a contract for your side. Lead Directing would not be reasonable,
Over a GF 2 that might be a doubleton, I think it's reasonable to use double as L/D - you might want the lead against 4M or 3N. Needing to compete for your own contract is pretty rare.
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rainer: “I do not think being polite needs to be codified in the ”Laws“.
If an opponent asks what the contract is as a matter of courtesy I will tell him rather than call the director for the ”correct“ ruling.”

Do you also “as a matter of politeness”, do the following if the opponent asks?

1) Tell him the bidding (or a specific bid)
2) Let him look at the previous trick, even after his card is turned over
3) Let him take back a bid he made too hurriedly
4) Let him take back a play he made too hurriedly
5) Let him take back a pass out of turn
6) Let him take back an illegal bid
7) Let him take back a lead out of turn
8) Let him take back a revoke
April 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David B: Absolutely. Which is why I said “ Not that relevant for declarer - barring gamesmanship.”
On the other hand, it may be that declarer has legitimately forgotten, and is just trying to save time. Thus, the thought might be, ‘if the contract is ’y', I have the rest and can claim; if it's ‘z’, then I don't and can't.'
April 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are hands that double with 14 or 15 HCP that might want to try for game facing a jump to 2M. Playing 2N forcing might be giving up on the best contract when advancer has a no-trumpy (in context) minimum.
Playing 2N as NF, doubler still has the options of direct 3N and ‘3 then 3N’.

Btw, I play 2N as forcing in my current partership. I'm simply giving you the argument you requested.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jess C: “The declarer only has a right to be informed under certain circumstances, that is, when it is his turn to play.”

One might argue that, in the part of the sentence that states “…declarer or either defender, at his own turn to play, is entitled to be informed as to what the contract is..”,

that “at his own turn to play” applies ONLY to “either defender”.

And that the intention of this clause is that a defender not be able to impart information to his partner. Not that relevant for declarer - barring gamesmanship.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This discussion is, for me, beside the point. The point is to understand when you are on ‘firm ground’ and when you're not.

It's smart for a partnership (including a first-time partnership) to have a default agreement about the forcing/non-forcing nature of an undiscussed bid.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve W:

Would you ever pass it, with an expert partner, where you have no reason (other than your opinion of the auction) to think he thinks it's NF?
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think not. Because then you will not get the ‘real’ answer from some players - who will now think more about it and not give the ‘answer’ they would have at the table.

Asking “what is Standard” and having the option “Other” is sufficient, in my opinion.
April 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Other” is the correct answer to the question asked.

To ‘prove’ this look at the andswers of two experts - Roger Lee and Josh Donn. If they played together, it seems Roger could bid 2N on some massive hand (since he thinks it forcing), and Josh could pass it. Thus there is no meeting of the minds, BECAUSE THERE IS NO STANDARD HERE.

Oh, btw, Roger and Josh won the Blue Ribbon pairs together.

I would think few partnerships - even long time experts have (or should I say ‘had’?) this covered. I first decided to cover it about 10 years ago, when I saw a world-class pair have a misunderstanding. I think it was Greco-Hampson (though it might have been a slightly different situation - which I also decided to cover).

If further evidence is needed (it isn't), one could look at my own notes with various players. With Mark Feldman and Chris Willenken, I played it as F1. With Pepsi, I played it as NF invitational.
April 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 261 262 263 264
.

Bottom Home Top