Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Rosenberg
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ken R: So, if it imps, what do you do?
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
E.K. was great. But he wasn't 100% correct about everything.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A BIT before signing off points more clearly in a particular direction than a BIT before KC.
Howver, if the player bidding KC then follows with an ‘out-of-tempo’ fast bid, then the COMBINATION of the BIt's becomes just as ‘telling’.

That is why, behind screens, it is a good idea to ‘even’ out your screenmate' tempo. Never allow slow call-fast call.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Stefan: My notes say “If partner shows 0 or 3, or 1 or 4, it is way above 99% that you will know which it is, so just act assuming the obvious. In the VERY UNLIKELY event that you cannot tell, sign off and partner will bid on with 3 or 4.”

But obviously if zero is ‘impossible’, you would now pass with 3. In discussion, I've said ‘reversing values or better’ - but I've never put it in my notes.

Interestingly, a couple of the greatest ‘fails’ in history came between zero and FOUR aces.
There was some French pair in a major championship that bid 1m-1red, 1-3, 4N-5, 7. !1s was intended as invitational but interpreted as GF.
Opener had some huge hand miussing only aces; he thought partner had at least 2 aces so thought 4N was safe (that part was silly - he could have control bid and seen if he got cooperation).
Then, after hearing 0/4 could not imagine a hand with zero (I think that part was reasonable). Of course partner, with the invitational hand, had none.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner opens 1N - 15-17. You hold x, AKQJ10xxxxx, x, x. Why is this interesting?
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tony R: Of course the game is driven by the laws. But do you disaprove of people wanting to change the ones they think can be improved upon?

In the current law, it's perhaps not clear which way a director would or should rule. It might depend, somewhat randomly, on who got polled.

Would you rather the laws were that the OP scenario can happen (ruling for N-S), or would you rather the laws be that the ruling would go against N-S?
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tony R: I'll repeat what I said elsethread to others.

"Here's how I see it. You want it to be part of our game that this North can pass 4 on this hand then successfully pull a slow double.
I want that not to be a part of our game.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In addition, the possibility of having mis-responded should be considered/covered. It's not uncommon for a mis-response to precede Hesitation Blackwood - partner was ‘surprised’.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about the queen of trumps?
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mark R: If the fabrication is something that can never be proved or disproved then it might be deemed ‘safe’ and ‘strengthening’.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I remember now that the alleged comment by Schapiro was part of my doubts about the ‘case’ when I read both books. It semed so out of character.

However, I'd point out two things.

1) Even if the accusers, or some of them, invented some of the evidence, it doesn't mean that the accused pair was not guilty.

2) Do we ever REALLY know another person?
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Other. OTHER.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I really liked this. Have always wanted to see an exper (especially me!) pitch a on A from 4-card in this type of position. Have never seen it - even though it's not really so impossible.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Andy.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John A: Somtimes the pollees already know the hand and who is involved. Another danger. Or the issue is pretty obvious and they have an opinion.
Responding to a posed problem can never be exactly the same as being at the table.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wendelin “Here we can agree to disagree. I think pulling that double is clear and logical.”

Yes, but not for this North player. You are not this North player.

“Do you think the actual laws, not the ones you propose, support your wish?”

I don't know. I think probably yes - since I believe the laws do make reference to a player's ‘ability’. A North who is ‘able’ to pass 4 is also ‘able’ to pass 4 doubled. But I don't know.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike M: For a North that passed over 4, it cannot be 100% that he would have pulled an in-tempo double.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wendelin: I've said the following many times on BW - though I don't put it on every post - it would be tiresome.

My concern is always for what I think the Laws should be, not what they are. My goal is alkways to improve oour laws to make the game better.

When I can see what I see as the correct ruling as being possible within current Law, then that is the ruling I would make. If I see that it cannot be ruled that way, I advocate for a change in the Law.

“You dont want that someone can succesfully pull a slow double, regardless of what the rules say.”

False. If the pull is clear and logical for that player, I have no problem with it.

The following is true:

I don't want that someone can successfully pull a slow double when I feel there is a reasonable chance they might, without too much consideration, have passed an in-tempo double.

Also true is the following:

I don't want that a player can take an illogical action then, after partner's BIT, ‘suddenly’ wake up to the correct logic.

I'm not sure which of those better applies to the OP case.

ASlso true is the following:

I want to have Laws that discourage actions that create extreme UI problems.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bobby W: As is normal for me, I can barely understand what you are saying. I have no “Nationalism” here. In fact I've already said more than once that I don't believe in the innocence of Reese and Shapiro.
I just want the analysis of this situation - or any situation - to be ‘fair’.
July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hey, Kit! You're hashing hands!
July 8
.

Bottom Home Top