You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think, from a partnership aspect, that TO double is ‘closer’ to the S hand than 1 overcall
Dec. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hopefully, you'll partner will know to run after (1)1-(P)P, (X)P-(P) with (say) Q10xx, Q10xx, 9x, xxx. Down 4 for 800 isn't good when you were probably safe had you doubled 1. Even difficult for partner to run with a 5-card M and a bad hand - you could easily be short there.
Dec. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
THat was the intention. But since a large percentage of players don't know this, it doesn't really work in practice.
Dec. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is a good inference. Have you ever thought of taking up bridge?
Dec. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mark R: “So without knowing their agreements(or seeing the convention card), I'm blaming the minimum offshape takeout double.”

In Standard, a TO double promises opening values and at least 3-card support for each unbid suit. It is not “offshape” by definition.

I'd understand the argument that a minimum opening with no 4-card M should not double.
Dec. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The problem on this hand is solved. Many new ones now arise.

The 3 bid was not part of any “system”.
Dec. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was simply correcting your spelling of wierd. I guess I should have written weird (sic).

“is possible even with bad 12H (forlorn Jacks and 3343).”

If you mean the OP hand it's 13 HCP

“Over here it wouldn't strike the majority of players.”

Ok, but I think would “strike” the majority to double with 14 or 15 HCP - or even more with no club stopper.

“You can read upthread that a sensible,constructive bidding ensues if not 3343.”

I see that as equivalent to saying that if my 1 opening denies 5-(3-3-2) shape, then better auctions will ensue. So what? I need a CHOICE with 3-3-4-3 14-16 HCP with no club stopper.

“Balancing exists.” It only “exists” if responder is friendly and passes. Smart players rarely pass 1.

“Also if partner is not able to make a t/o double or bid a 5cM in sandwich-4th seat we wont go far and I will have shown pointlessly my pathetic strength.”

False. Partner may have the wrong shape to act. Your failure to show your strength could easily result in a missed game.
Furthermore, most experts today believbe that, with nobody vul, it pays to get in and show interest in competing - at any form of scoring (but especially imps).

“I would double with 4414 e.g.”

That is non-standard. You could agree with your partner to do that. Without prior agreement that could result in disaster. But even with agreement, I'd feel for your partner after (1)X-(1) who has to decide whether to bid his 5-card suit.
Dec. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Patrick L: “What is weird (corrected)?”

Why can't doubler be 3-3-4-3? Even if you disagree with the particular OP hand, there are some with that shape where double is normal and clear.
Dec. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael S: That still seems wrong to me. You could just sit there over 6 and wait till partner realizes what he did. I'd rule you have to bid again - 6 is gone.
Dec. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2N is a lot ‘closer’ to the N hand than 3
Dec. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even if that is the correct idea, 10 is better than J - you'd rather ‘sneak’ it through.
Dec. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You think 2 might be 3-card and Patrick L. thinks it's likely 6-card. I think either thought is weird.
Dec. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ruling seems absurd to me on it's face, and I explained why elsethread.

But there is one thing I don't understand about the facts presented.

“..My RHO (opener)”

“I had led a against 6…”

One of these has to be wrong.

I'd also like to know opener's shape. If it was 5-1-5-2, as I suspect, I'll have another comment.
Dec. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Henrik: “where in the commantaries do you find that he must realize within 1 second and it's to late to change after 15?”

Nowhere - it's just common sense. It's likey trhat your ace response was a ‘surprise’ - hence the BIT. You don't get to change your bid after partner's ‘surprise’ induces you (or even MIGHT have induced you) to re-add your aces (or, even worse, wake up to the idea that partner's 4 bid was ace-asking.
Dec. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with Dave and Steve. 3 is the bid with 2-4-2-5 that, for whatever reason, does not want to bid 3N (or 2-4-1-6). 5-6 has to either bid 4, or 3 then 4. 3 is 3-card 3 and 3 should be short spades. Since our NT ‘problem’ can be either in or this is the sensible structure.

If 3 showed 3 and 3 showed 5, that would mean you needed to bid 3! on 2-4-1-6, 2-4-2-5, 0-4-4-5, 1-4-3-5 (unsuitable for 3N) and 1-4-2-6 (unsuitable for 3N). Too much of a burden to sort out all that.

This theme - opener rebidding his second suit with 5-4-2-2 - has several applications.
Dec. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A few years ago I asked a Director about this. Is 2 really NEVER an alert? His reply was, “It's not an alert even if it shows 9 puppy dogs and 4 lamb's tails”. Maybe they should put that on the front of the ACBL Bulletin in capital letters.
Dec. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“my teammates who were verbally attacked by an angry declarer who repeatedly said that ”they should be ashame of winning a board in such a way“…(He was also very aggressive towards the Director).”

I did not know this when I posted the article, but it does not surprise me. Instead of getting angry with his opponents (or the Director!), the player should be apologizing for causing the problem.
However, I'd such behaviour from a ‘bad claimer’ is not at all unusual. With certain people, this behavior is typical. All that matters to them is winning. Not their failure to complain properly; not their totally inappropriate reaction.

I see no place for such behavior in our game. I think such behaviour (anger, insults, banging stuff) from a player, especially when the player was the source of the problem, should produce an official C and E hearing. And a warning that a repetition will lead to suspension; repeated repetitions should lead to expulsion.
Dec. 9, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tomasz. You asked a question “What do you want from Fantoni?”. I answered it and said what I wanted.
I think one should be able to give you a simple and honest answer to a question you ask - without getting criticized.
Dec. 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When you play on hearts you set up 0ne trick 100% of the time, two fast tricks 50% of the time and 3 tricks 18% of the time. (Also two ‘slow’ tricks 18 percent of the time.

When you play spades, you set up one trick about 80% of the time and two tricks very rarely (about 2% of the time.)

I disagree with Marty Harris who thinks it's so unlikely West has KQ. Yes, if he's led a LOW club there would be some valid inference. But the lead was from a sequence, and the auction was ‘slow’ AND South (obviously) can have 4- card spades. Everything suggests leading clubs from the sequence.
In fact, the same exact principle that makes a heart the correct play (at matchpoints, anyway) makes a club from (say) KQx(x) and J109x(x).

In addition, if you play on hearts, there is an excellent chance that, looking at that dummy, they might shift to spades and ‘help’ me there.

The general point is that you want to attack suits where you can set up tricks, while giving the opponents nothing they don't have on top already.
Where you have an apparent choice, you generally want to attack the suit where they have the ace, ot the AK (or the AKQ!). I can even construct a hand where it's correct to attack the suit where you're missing the AKQJ.
Dec. 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tomasz: I'd settle for all of the following:

1) Confessing to collusive cheating, naming any partner he did it with
2) Giving all details about how he did it
3) Giving away all the money he ‘stole’ due to cheating
4) Relinquishing all titles won
5) Promising never to compete again in a bridge tournament
Dec. 8, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top