Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Rosenberg
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, that's one nice thing about electronic play; no revokes, penalty cards, insufficient bids, bids out of turn, etc.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The ensemble cast, where an actor might be Lt Rowcliffe one episode and a murderer the next, was strange.”

Archie would disagree.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lee O: “I think 3D was a serious overbid, given that 2NT was available as a scramble.”

If 2N is defined as a scramble, then 3 shows zero values. It can be a misbid, but not an “overbid”.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jeff H: When I play Flannery, that is what I do.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I don't know what illegal play cancelled means?”. It means we go back to that point and start playing legally. If it's deemed ‘too late’ to do that, we evaluate what ‘would have happened’ - with the benefit of any doubt accruing to the non-offenders.
Basically, that is what you;re doing in the trump ace example. I'm suggesting extending it - so that ‘unmakable’ contracts stay unmade.

Somebody trying to illegaly ‘hide’ their revoke is a problem. With my suggested change, there is LESS reason for them to do so - the penalty is no longer ‘automatic’.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry - my comments up to now missed the fact that North HAD raised to 2. So the attitude question boils down to a separation of xxx and xxxx. I'd certainly lead low with the latter if the rest of my hand was ‘anti-shift’. Maybe Qxxxx, xxxx, K, xxx.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
SInce I dislike RR's, I'll point out that, if we had a proper non-subjective rating system, we could play all KO. With 5 teams, the bottom 2 play. With 6 teams there are two byes. With 7 teams there is one bye. With 9 teams, the bottom two play. Etc., etc.
Since we don't have such a rating system, we'd have to produce some criteria which (inevitably) would draw criticism. but, maybe one day…
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree it was the best. But I still thought it was prety bad….
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ok - I feel better that it's not clearly defined as non-alertable.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike M: For me, yes, it is a different issue. I allow any LEGAL play. But if it's an ILLEGAL play, I don't think it should be part of the bridge result.

Your position is an improvement over current law. But I don't think it goes far enough - and also ‘punishes’ revokes ‘unevenly’.

Do you really object to the concept of ‘illegal play is canceled’. Play reverts with redress for any damage'?
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ok, I see you've now added “Other” as an option.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think that's absolute about the honor. If I had 4-card hearts and didn't think I wanted a shift, I'd lead low playing attitude. To give my partner a chance to separate xxxx from xxx (or xx!)
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My “serious explanation” was to Robert Greene - who I thought clearly misread Bernard's comment. Sorry if I was wrong, or if I wasn't supposed to do that.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At least one more poll option is needed. If declarer has a totally ‘normal’ hand such as AQx, Q108, AQx, Kxxx, then neither poll option is optimal. Also, AQx, Q108, AKQ, Jxxx. Yes, partner MIGHT have bid 2 on those - but vul at matchpoints not everybody would.
Even AQx, Q108, AQx, KJxx MIGHT lead to a misguess.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michal: What sarcasm did I fail to appreciate?
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my notes, it says “Fourth best from an honor (10 is optional)”.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Frances: “ If this is a leb position, I don't have a good hand; if it's a scramble position I am not sure which minor to play in”

The OP stipulates that 2N is a scramble.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Julian: “Seems like to fit the bidding.”

I don't think it fits the opponents' bidding…
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael. S: “Ax – AKxx AKxxxxx ”. Aren't you a little surprised at the lack of activity from your favorable opponents?
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I complained about the form of the poll. I think you claimed (and, I think, continue to claim) it was valid.

I see that as ‘defending’ the OP.
Oct. 14
.

Bottom Home Top