Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Rosenberg
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 363 364 365 366
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What was the hand where it came up? What happened?
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In any partnership where I've actually had an agreement, 3 has been NF.
I have no knowledge that this is optimal, but tend not to worry about an auction that rates to come up less than once a decade.

I also think that, if there is a ‘Standard’ definition, then that definition is NF.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike M“ ”So there are two ways of bidding , bidding it now, and passing 2NT, then bidding it after they X.What would be their difference?"

Obviously pass then bid is weaker. However, it does not logically follow that 3 directly ‘should’ be forcing.
If 2N is passed out, you may play there down 4 (or more) vulnerable - with 3 down one - maybe even making if partner is 2-1-5-5. That is a substantial loss.
Further more, the direct 3 bid might make things far more difficult for the opponents than passing 2N. It's a lot more comfortable to bid 3 over 2N than it is to bid 4 over 3.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In situations such as this, what happens so often in practice is that advancer somehow ‘figures out’ that 4 ‘negates’ the Michaels bid - and now passes it. So 4 does actually end up taking advantage of the UI - moving out of a maybe 3-3 fit to a better, possibly much longer, fit.
When oponents ask for redress based on the ‘figuring out’ they are told, by Directors and Commitees, ‘advancer has no UI - he can do whatever he wants’.
I've seen this happen double-digit times.

It's likely what happened is the person who bid 4 ‘panicked’ and thought ‘my partner bid 3 thinking I have 5-card . So I’d better bid 4'. (Of course, the same thought process came before the 5 bid.)

So, whatever ‘deep’ arguments are made by others here, my experience tells me that the 4 bid was induced purely by the UI - it would never have been made if advancer had simply said ‘some strong hand’.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I leave it vague deliberately so people can just answer whatever they want. ”

So what you want is poll results that you don't know the meaning of. Got it.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bruce E: “The UI also suggests bidding 4 instead of 4.”

No, it does not. BRIDGE “suggests” bidding 4. Partner showed 5(+)-card . We have enough values for game. We have no slam aspirations. 4 is a totally automatic normal bid and ANY other call is ‘using’ the UI (regardlrss of wheher that use was self-interested or otherwise).

And if 4 gets doubled, of course you would not consider running - again, that would be ‘using’ the UI.

No need to even go into the repetition of taking advantage of UI that South did over 4. The above is enough to say that the best result N-S can ever achieve is in 4.

However, I will make a side comment on this:

“North should have more like xxxx xxx x xxxx for thrr signoff.”

North made a free bid of 3 - not a “signoff”. He was allowed to pass. And, for most, a free bid needs more than zero HCP - even with the advantage of having only 12 cards.

I'm pretty confident that South did whatever he could to ‘win’ - rather than giving ANY thought to ‘what would I have done had I not heard the alert. Because that is how I am supposed to think.’

And, as the first part of my comment here makes clear, I think it's obvious that any South who had that thought would raise 3 to 4.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“From a less eminent authority, that comment might be viewed as supersilious.”

Actually, I think the mention of “liquify” makes the comment superfluidous.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For the umpteenth time, I wish the OP would make it clear what is being asked. Is it what you think is Standard? Is it what you think is optimal? Or is it what you have agreed to play in your regular partnership?
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bruce E: Getting into a discussion/argument about whether South can ‘figure’ out to bid 4 or 5 is, to my mind, entirely missing the point or points.

The points I see as relevant are:

a) South got UI from the alert
b) The UI woke South up to the true state of affairs
c) Once you get UI, you are not suddenly allowed to use it to ‘think cleverly’ and look for the best way out of your ‘problem’
d) South took blantant advantage of the alert

Without the UI, there is every reason to think that South would have raised 3 to 4, OR passed when it was bid. EITHER of these leads to 4 (West's possible double is a separate issue).

Had there been no alert, or had this hand been behind screns, or had this hand been played electronically. It is quite likely the contract would have been 4.
Why allow a player to blatantly and successfuly take advantage of UI simply because the procedure in place (alerts, no screens, no electronic play) afford him the advantage of hearing the UI?
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't understand why the OP has “Misinformation or Misbid?” as part of the title, when by far the most releveant thing that happened on the hand was that South blatantly took advantage of Unauthorized Information.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David B: “it is never an error to use ”less“.”

It's always a mistake to use the word “never”?

Side Conundrum.

There are less eight words in this sentence.

Without the word “less”, is the preceding sentence more (or less) sensible?
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry R: “If you're careless in how you state your line you're just as guilty as someone who made a bad claim and you get the same punishment.”

Not absolutely. If you're claim is “bad” you have no chance (asssuming you are ‘called’ out). If it's “careless” you might sometimes ‘get away’ with it IRL.

“But ”off with his head“ is exactly what the Laws say!”

You and I don't define “exactly” in exactly the same way…
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So if a player, even an expert, claimed with AKQ2 of trumps and one outstanding, it MIGHT be deemed that they lose a trick?
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What I think is that judging a player's statements and actions is, ipso facto, a judgment call.
I said nothing about any particular situation or case. My comment was directed at your “off with his head” rhetoric - which seems to me to contain more inherent bias than anything Ed said here.
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry R: I think there's a possibility that ‘loses a trick that he might reasonably be deemed to lose’ is not the exact equivalent of “Off with his head”.
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Derrick: Is it also assumed that your next play will always BE a trump?
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John L: Perhaps your disappointment should be directed at the use and acceptance of slovenly speech habits in general, rather than at ‘Americans’ in particular.
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David B: How about if declarer as he claims says ‘I have a 100% play for the rest?’

If you answer this ‘negatively’ (as I assume you will), then “rest” assured I will have another question to pose….
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marty H: “The people who hate Multi generally don't participate in this forum, but they greatly outnumber us.”

I seriously doubt they outnumber us. They're just louder.
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You pays your money….
Sept. 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 363 364 365 366
.

Bottom Home Top