Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Rosenberg
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tony: Well I have a hope for you and your peers. I hope that you will learn that when you double out of tempo in tempo sensitive situations, and then partner pulls, that you are putting the result for your side in additional jeopardy.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wendelin and Ed: The BIT suggests more doubt about defending than a faster double would - thus bidding is ‘suggested’ over the slow double.

For THIS North, passing 4 doubled IS a logical alternative.

Because the Norths for whom passing 5 is NOT a logical alternative already bid 5 on their previous turn.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eduard: “World class player at the other table had also removed 4X to 5. Result is one down after lead A. I remember this: bidding at other table is really similar, but meaning is maybe different.”

I'm guessing the bidding was not the same, in that the “world-class” North player did not pass 4 as the OP North did. So no analogy.

But even if it WERE the same, I would have no problem disallowing the 5 bid in the OP. Presumably, the “world class” South player didn't think for a minute before doubling.

It's the hesitation that creates the environment for problem. It's the 5 bid that causes the problem. If this is allowed, we'll continue to have this happening. If it's not allowed, players will figure that creating UI, and then using it, is not a winning strategy. I believe that's a good thing.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many of Mr. Yates' pronouncements in this article are definitive, yet I se them as clearly not able to be substantiated. To me, they demonstrate a lot of bias. If you can't see that, I believe it's because you don't want to believe it.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What the double suggests is not the relevant issue. The relevant issue is why North failed to bid the previous round with a ‘normal’ 5 bid and now makes the ‘correct’.

For sure, the slow double suggests uncertainty. If South had some hand where he was sure he wanted to defend, then the double would have been in tempo. We don't know if North used this information - but we know that he MIGHT have.

If this particular North would have bid over an in-tempo double then he got ‘unlucky’ that partner chose this moment for a protracted huddle in an extremely tempo-sensitive situation.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wendelin: Sorry, you are correct. I should gave at least added to “the only reasonable arguments” the words ‘that I can currently think of’.

Please tell me of any other arguments you have. (And, even if you don't currently have one, my ‘definitive’ statement was out of line.)
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eduard: If you look at what is currently the last comment on this thread, you will see that Robin Hillyard - who made the comment you cited - has now recanted his view rregarding South's pass of 4.
In addition, one of the two ‘likes’ for the original comment has been removed.

Are you starting to feel alone yet?

But even if you HAD support for your view, it would not matter.

If even 50% think it's not a “serious error” then it's almost certainly not. (And, as you have never addressed/answered, the standard is “extremely serious error”.)

If it's 60% even more so. If it's 80% even more so.

If, as I believe, it's over 90%, continuing to call it a “serious error” is ridiculous, and becomes merely a show of stubbornness - unwilling to admit you are incorrect.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike M: I understand that. Those Norths simply become ‘unlucky’ that their partners stopped them for being able to bid. I feel for them. But don't blame the opponents or director. Blame partner.

And, hopefully, seeing rulings such as this will cause/influence more and more people to act in tempo in extremely tempo-sensitive situations.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What the double suggests is not the relevant issue. The Directror understood the issues. The “jury” did not.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Timo: Well I think it might have been better if there had been some sort of statement/qualifier in the article about how Zia is regarded and for the author's respect.

Kit is extremely ‘matter-of-fact’, so probably thought such a statement to be unnecessary. Or he might have thought it was so obvious as not needing to be said. But, in this case, with a wide readership, I think it would have been better had Kit explicitly said it. Roy's reaction is, to me, evidence of that.

Note: I didn't re-read the article before making this comment, so if Kit DID make such a statement I apologize to him.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit: Absolutely! That is the whole point of why the long, winding (long-winded?) analysis by the author has nothing to do with reality. Often, a defender just makes some play. And, if a player were cheating, that play would be A.

That is why the only reasonable argumemts (for those in the ‘they were cheating’ camp) here are a) Reese missed the signal or b) Reese ‘sacrificed’ the ‘best’ defense for ‘political’ reasons.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David B: “ you will not make on your line because East will ruff the fourth round of diamonds with the singleton J”

That was true the first time that line-type was suggested. In the more sensible version proposed (I think originally by Barry Rogoff, then others, and now by Craig Z.), the A is cashed at trick 3.
July 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was thinking David meant that declarer would cash AK before deciding on diamonds.
But I also think that just because he might open without Q, it's not clear he MUST open. So I still see it as a guess for declarer. In addition, running J loses to stiff Q - not impossible.

DEfinitely agree with your last paragraph. It's ABC - as opposed to what i deem the author's long-winded biased analysis, which I see as largely based on his belief that they were definitely cheating - rather than based on truth and the facts.
July 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit: “I can see 5 going for 500 when 4 might not be making.”

And I can see 5 might be making whwn 4 gets passed out and is making. - —, AJ10x, xxx, AKxxxx. Which is the bigger worry?

“I don't see how the tempo of the double affects this decision for this particular auction and this particular North hand.”

The point is that the tempo may affect the decision for this particular NORTH. How do we know that the player who passed last time wouldn't now pass an in-tempo double? This North is not as strong a player as Kit Woolsey.

The pint is that we don't want this to keep happening. If it's possible for North to pull, what that means is that this is an extremely tempo-sensitive situation. Don't think 45 seconds to a minute in an extremely tempo-sensitive situation. Don't. Just don't.

Or, if you do, don't expect much sympathy when partner pulls.

That is the message we should be sending - so this stops happening over and over again.
July 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John A: And don't you worry that, since the pass is not logical to either of us, that now bidding may have been provoked by the BIT? In other words, isn't it entirely possible that this particular North would have passed a ‘snappy’ doublke of 4?
And isn't it true that, in that case, there is no possibility for any ‘redress’?

All this is why we should not want to allow the combination of pass (wrong action) - slow double - then pull ('suddenly' finding the right action).
July 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike M: At the prevailing vul, it doesn't make much sense. Your only gain comes when they make and you make EXACTLY 9 tricks more and you should have bid right away, less and you should pass now.

It also doesn't make sense to ‘advertise’ you have a bad hand. You encourage a double - whereas a direct bid might deter one - or encourage a further bid by them.

I the particular OP hand I'd be thinking it would be bad if partner passed out 4 - might even e REALLY bad - double make. And if partner is not passing out 4, you may as well bid now.

There might be some hands and/or vulnerability where this strategy of yours could make sense.

But probably not this vulnerability. And definitely not this hand.
July 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cameron: You have covered most of the ground here. But I disagree with one fact and your conclusions.

The fact: “Now (so it seems from the cheap seats) any microscopic BIT is a death-sentence sure to result in a cascade of grievances”

I guess you were speaking generally. The actual OP case was a protracted BIT.

Also, there were screens in use. Whenever screens are (thankfully) being used it means all the “infintesimal” stuff is gone. You always have some time with ZERO BIT attached (which is why I love screens - so much more relaxing).

But you definitely got to the heart of the matter when you talked about recovering from the ‘error’ of North passing 4. You can easily reover rom this error - as long as partner doesn't foolisahly mess things up with a BIT.

Because, after the BIT, we have to ask what woke you up to your ‘error’. Maybe the fact that partner started thinking made you realize ‘Oh my gosh!. What have I done?’ We can't know.

And of course this says nothing about the possibilty that you simply thought to pull a double because it seemed a bit ‘uncertain’.

And that's why the combination of the pass-then slow double - then pull is one we want to avoid. It's not fair (or, at least, it MIGHT not be fair).
And that's why I feel the message should be sent that this won't ‘fly’. We want to stop it. And the way to stop it is to have people make doubles such as this in normal tempo.

It's listening to the complaints of those that do the wrong thing and pass, then do the wrong thing and double out of tempo, and then pull, that should be making you ask for aspirin.
July 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Larry R: I know at least one expert whom I respect that believes this is a good method. Which is why I referenced it in my first comment on this thread.

Excellent point about the need to cover follow-ups and competition.
July 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“point A summarizes the EBL jury's opinion on this UI case.”

Not surprising. There are many who don't truly understand the issues relating to UI.
July 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eduard: Sorry, I was wrong to say “or”. I guess your last comment shows you to be a member of BOTH groups.
I and others have explained this on this thread. I'm through explaining it to you.

If you must reply to me do the readership of Bridgewinners a favor and do so privately.
July 6
.

Bottom Home Top