Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Rosenberg
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed R: Isn't East's failure to inform North correctly about the system an infraction?
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or a second really bad misguess….
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My first question is this. You said that “it is a good expert bidding strategy to not allow high turnover in critical situation”

And what you meant was that South, with hearts, should ALWAYS double to avoid this high turnover.

What I am asking you is why doesn't the same ‘rule’ apply to North in the OP? Clearly this particular North had no agreement that South must double. Obviously, bidding 4 is a “higher turnover” than passing. Even without South's redouble. bidding 41s cost at least 18 imps. So why shouldn't North equally avoid the high turnover?
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ah. So my line can be improved simply by drawing the second trump in hand. If 2-2, claim. If 3-1 cross to Q and THEN run 0. Makes if LHO has QJxxx(x) and a stiff and Q (or xxxxx!).

No need to risk Est ruffing the heart. In my mind I wa thinking I was probably down then anyway. But silly to play second to Q as I suggested.
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You might well be right. But I'm not sure what “if the West hand has a small heart and a singleton club” has to do with it.
My instinct was it was a little higher than 91%.
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve: If that is the case then I think South did nothing seriously wrong.
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eduard: I will respond to your comment AFTER you answer the following two questions:

1) You said: “it is a good expert bidding strategy to not allow high turnover in critical situations. For example, in a high level competetive bidding. If player have two sensible choices, it is better to choose one that doesn't a big turn.”

Couldn't that far better be said of Norh's 4 bid in the OP, when he could have passed and avoided the “big turn” here?

This is (I think) the fourth time I have asked this question. If you ever answered it then, sorry, I missed it.

2) If the bidding went 2(4), what do you think North should do with the OP hand?
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“In last position you pass or bid 4?”

Because I play sound preempts I would act over 2. I would double 2 as Pass/Correct.

If I play 2 as unsound (as apparently this South did), then as North, I have to guess. I'd probably shrug my shoulders and pass 4. Too much danger that partner has hearts in an ‘unsound’ style. If partner has spades then maybe 4 and 4 both go down? Probably not (I reckon less than 5% chance), so in that case I say, maybe this unsound Multi thing actually carries some risks.
All methods which are based on an unspecified suit are inherently disaster-prone.

Perhaps if 2 virtually guarantees only a 5-card suit, it might be correct to play that, over 2, respnder's 2 bid is ‘raise with spades, bid 3m (or 2N) with hearts.’ Or perhaps, over the P/C double of 2, South should run to 3. Perhaps if North doubled 2, East would err and bid 4 anyway. There have been lots of disasters for both sides after Multi.

However, in NO circumstances would I criticize my partner for not doubling 4. If I agreed to play these methods AND misguessed over 4, then I'd blame the combination of my bad guess and the poor methods I agreed to.


* * * * *

“But certainly you will accept that this kind of discussion (remorse, etc) is not constructive.”

I don't know what that means, But I have long since accepted that no part of your argument with me rates to be constructive. You don't want to learn anything. You just want to stick with thinking your original opinion was correct. It was not.

An egregious error is an error that everybody knows is an error. Not only don't we not know that South's pass is an error, there is at least one (and probably several) world class players who think pass is correct.
The moment that you read Kit saying he would not double 4 (not to mention me saying it's not clear), you should have immediately realized you were wrong about your opinion of South's pass being an egregious error. Instead, you continue to argue and argue - with the same one argument.
I am NOT saying you cannot maintain the position that South should double 4. That is a reasonable position.
However, it is NOT reasonable to maintain the position that South's pass was an egregious error.
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is another line which has a high probability of success. A, to ace, to Q, run 9, ruff return, run all trumps (pitching and ), A, A, to K, finesse heart.

Cold if trumps are 2-2; cold if East has a honor or LHO has QJ doubleton. Cold if Q is singleton or doubleton, cold if the length is with the Q. Also makes if East has xxx and is marked with Q in the 2-card ending. All that seems to be clearly over 90%. Maybe even approaching 95% (though I'm pretty confident it's under that). I'm not sure whether Kit's line is better.

Couple more things. One of the ‘recoveries’ in Kit's line was not mentioned - Q109 onside.

Also after to ace, A, if the 10 falls in West, you can cross to a trump to lead the second heart.

Both of these add slightly to Kit's line.

And I think it's worth remembering that there must be some hand (not this one as far as I can see), where the first trump from hand should be JACK - overtaking when LHO has stiff 10.
July 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This has always worried me a bit. It doesn't sit right with me that pairs ‘normally’ have to file by a certain date, but if you entered later then the date is later. Is there at least some downside to entering later?
July 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I didn't understand that argument when you made it earlier. I still don't now. The fact that somebody, in some ruling on a different hand suggested that somebody might do something, in no way translates to South's pass of 4 in the OP being deemed an ‘egregious error’.
If the person in the ruling DID say it would be egregious to pass, then they would be just as wrong as you have been on this thread.

I am not (and I think have not been) saying that South should not double 4 (though others have said this; some saying pass is clear).
What I am saying, that you can never seem to get, is that, despite your personal opinion, South's pass of 4 was not an egregious error. And that deeming it an egregious error is nothing short of ridiculous.

Whatever South does over 4, if the MI was the source of the bad result, N-S should get redress.
July 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eduard: “I think you haven't answered some of my remarks…”

Which remarks, that would be appropriate for me to answer, did I not answer?

* * * * *

I must conclude, for now, that you have no answer to my QUESTIONS (not merely remarks):

“Couldn't that far better be said of Norh's 4 bid in the OP? Didn't he have two ‘sensible choices’? Wasn't pass the one that ‘doesn’t have a ”big turn"?
July 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Frances: “ps the redouble wasn't irrelevant. N/S should still get the extra pain incurred by the redouble, which was definitely wild”

I guess that means you disagree with the Edgar Kaplan principle. Which is that if the avoidance of the egregious action would still have left you badly placed, then it does not ‘count’.
I don't think I'm expresing that very well - hopefully you understand what I mean.

As an example, let's say that EW blatantly use MI or UI to bid 4 over your 4 and that 4 is unbeatable. It should and does get rolled back to 4.
If you revoked against 4 and now they make an overtrick, or two overtricks, no matter. YOU COULD NOT HAVE ACHIEVED THE RESULT YOU WOULD HAVE AGAINST ETHICAL OPPONENTS.

Same goes for the redouble here. South (we are assuming) ‘should’ have achieved 4 down one. So, as far as SCORE adjustment goes, the redouble WAS irrelevant - we should never have been there.

Think about it' Let's say South, defending 4 in my example, had made a nullo play in a 2-=card ending. Are we really going to search for that possibility - then deduct an imp for NS? Are we going to make this ‘search’ in every UI/MI case?

Now, if it is argued that South redoubled in anger, and we want to punish this kind of behavior, then we could award a Procedural or DISCIPLINARY penalty against South. but in terms of the score on the board, the redouble should have no relevance.
July 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eduard: “If this happen (I. 4nt is tought contract II. suprice news from East player: on the other table is result 3nt one down), then I lost my opportunity to profit. Deal is propably arround a draw.”

You seem to have great difficulty, even when an an obvious point is made to you, from simply saying ‘Yes, you are correct. Them running to 4N making would be a big loss.’

I noticed you totally failed to address my point about NORTH failing to choose the “not big turn” action.

* * * * *

“If South pass and N bid 4, then NS loss is min 15 imps. If South use ”irrelevant“redouble, then NS loss is min 21 IMPs.”

The redouble is irrelevant to the score adjustment because it was too late - the disaster had already taken place. I said elsethread that a Procedural Penalty for the redouble might be appropriate.

* * * * *

“This is bridge which we wish play? Do you think such a situation makes bridge an attractive game?”

When you use this case to ask questions in that tone, it influences me to have two thoughts:

1) You don't have a good understanding of MI matters in general

and/or

2) You have a something personal against South
July 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David C: No they don't always lead spades on THIS auction. If they have 5(+0-card they will almost certainly lead them. If not, then look at the auction:

a) Neither declarer nor dummy will have 5-card or
b) Opener has denied 4-card or 4-card
c) Dummy is more likely to have 4-card than 4-card (since players ‘always’ bid 2 with 3-2-4-4, while some will prefer 1 on 4-2-3-4.

So on “this” auction it's a lead that is indicated - not the unbid major.

I'll comment elsethread about the philosophy of information leakage.
July 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eduard: “Double can't usually turn a big turn”

Isn't pushing the opponents out of 4 (down one) into 4N (making - perhaps doubled) a pretty big loss?

“it is a good expert bidding strategy to not allow high turnover in critical situations. For example, in a high level competetive bidding. If player have two sensible choices, it is better to choose one that doesn't a big turn.”

Let your own eyes read the words you have written.
Couldn't that far better be said of Norh's 4 bid in the OP? Didn't he have two ‘sensible choices’? Wasn't pass the one that ‘doesn’t have a big turn'?
July 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here are two future cases I would see as ‘justice’.

Case 1: Mr Velecky's opponent gives MI. Due to the misinformation, Mr. Velecky has a disaster - goes for a huge number. He believes he has done nothing abnormal after the infraction. He calls the Director, expecting redress. The Director says, "My inexorable logic leads me to deem that your action ‘y’ was an egregious error. Therefore you get no redress'.

Case 2: Mr Velecky opens Multi holding a weak two in hearts. The bidding goes (2)-P(4). Mr velecky doubles. 4 was going down, but the opponents run to 4N and make that (perhaps doubled by partner).
At the end of the hand, Mr. Velecky's partner said ‘Of course we would have defended 4 had you passed. With my void, I susoected you had a weak two in hearts. If I’d wanted to get in, I'd have acted over 2. Haven't you ever heard that a preempter shouldn't act again? Why on earth did you double?'
July 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Absolutely. At the completion of the auction, one generally regrets every bid made - except (maybe) the final bid.
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“All auctions are better with fewer bids”

Not categorically. Some bids may HURT the opponents…
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So I guess you think looking before you jump is not necessary or even a good idea. I recommend no jumps for you.
June 30
.

Bottom Home Top