Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Rosenberg
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hmm. If “leaping” automatically implies a lack of necessary precautions, then why is the adage “Look before you leap”? If you look first then, according to you, it has become impossible to now leap…

I'm not saying “leap” and “jump” are absolutely synonyms - they are not. What I am saying is that I suspect Kit made the differentiation clear in his mind AFTER he said “leaping to slam is always wrong”, rather than before. Otherwise, one would think he would have pointed out the subtle difference in his initial comment.

Of course, I could be wrong. Only Kit knows for sure.
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eduard: “there's nothing new in your arguments”.

I believe I've said something ‘new’ in each comment. I'm not certain that you can say the same.

* * * * * *

“If you open multi with 5cards, you MUST clear situation. If you open with long hearts, you must double 4 (2 or 3 too), this is your duty. If you pass, then you show other major. This is a clear and inexorably logic.”

No it is not. Your stating your opinion as if it were somehow a fact does not actually make it a fact.
Elsethread, you said “My tip is very simple: if you open multi and oponents decide to play in your color, clear the situation up with use red card.”

I think this is the problem. You are unable to distinguish between a “tip” and “inexorable logic”. For you, apparently, these things are equivalent - at least if it's you making the “tip”.

Here's a fact. Sometimes when you double 4 you will clue an opponent in as to what has happened. And, instead of playing 4 down (even assuming you can defeat it) they will, sensibly and successfully run to 4N.
I have played Multi. I would not think it is CLOSE to mandatory to double here. Rather I'd think it was up top partner to double 2 as ‘pass/correct - or stay out of the auction unless he is certain I have spades.

And, even given that you are correct (which I certainly do not concede), when the opponents do something wrong, let’s punish South for not playing ‘perfect’, ‘courageous’ bridge? I think Not.
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dave C: What would North bid after 1H-2, 2N with AQJx, Qx, Jx, KJxxx?
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kieran: “Since 3NT is an immediate make on anything but a diamond lead..”
Not quite.

I didn't see anything interesting about the OP question. So, naturally, I made up something interesting about the hand. East has 5-4-4-0. If West leads a , East must NOT cash the diamonds - declarer pitches a spade from dummy and West gets squeezed.

Instead, East must (at some point before the fourth can be played) shift to a heart.
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eduard: Here are some reasons why I think your ‘key’ isn't in reality a key.

South has to make a sudden decision over the surprising 4 bid
It's not fair for South to be condemned for not realizing that with his hand he ‘should’ double - when he can't even definitely defeat 4. More to the point, his hand ALSO CAN'T DEFEAT 4N IF OPPONENTS RUN - OR 5N, 6N OR 7N. It can't defeat slam in clubs. It can't defeat grand slam in spades or diamonds.
The ONLY reason for South to double is the fear that partner, who passed 2, MIGHT sudddenly bid 4. And (presumably) partner will be void in hearts and be aware of the danger that you actually have hearts (are you saying South should double on ANY hand with 5-card ?).

Even if we assume South ‘should’ double 4 (which I do not), it is ridiculous to call the failure to double in this weird situation egregious. I'd say that pass was ‘normal’ under the circumstances.


People should stop ascribing clairvoyance to non-offenders when they have decisions to make under pressure. South's failure to double 4, under pressure in a weird situation, was not a ‘revoke’ or a ‘mind loss’.

EW clearly had or did something wrong. N-S (until the redouble) not so much.

I think you are way, way (way) off base here. I believe I was doing you a favor by speculating that you might have a personal interest of some sort. Because, without that, I think your opinion here is…an egregious error.
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eduard: “Michael, your key and my key is different”

Yes. My key is that I don't want the side that did something wrong to ever gain as a RESULT of the wrong that they did (as opposed to SUBSEQUENT to the wrong that they did).

I'm still not sure what your ‘key’ is. So far, it seems to me to be that, on this particular hand, you didn't get the result you wanted.
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eduard: If I thought the redouble (or your ridiculous 7 bid) was done in anger, then I'd think a Procedural Penalty was appropriate.

But, for the adjusted score on the board, yes it's irrelevant - because -1700 was worse than N-S would have achieved but for the UI (on the assumption that we are ruling that way).
Had (say) 4 been making, and 4 doubled going down less than the score for 4, THEN the redouble is relevant, and N-S keep their score.

South's passing 4 is not an egregious error - if it as an error at all. Kit argues elsethread that South should not double. A ruling that the failure to double was egregious is the sort of ruling I would despise.

I can see you don't think this is fair. But it actually is - because South ‘should’ not have been in this position (and likely would not have been so but for the MI) - and even had he continued to play ‘normal bridge’ he had no chance of a reasonable score. That is the key.
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps be guided by East's discard on the spade.
If a heart, then Victor's - sorry, Stefan's - line seems correct - losing only to A98-AJ10x-4-Kx or A98-AJ10-5-Kx with LHO, but gaining against the more likely rattlesnake (including J or 10) with RHO. If an ‘easy’ then (eventually) try to transfer the menace (just in case), and then hope for some squeeze.
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The redouble IS irrelevant. Since it did not materially affect the NS result. If NS wee damaged then (almost) none of the damage was caused by the redouble.
It cannot be said that the damage was a CONSEQUENCE of the redouble. That is the key.

Let's take some hypothetical examples.

Case 1: The opponents use UI to bid 4 over your 4. 4 was clearly going down and 4 also goes down. No problem - the UI users created their own punishment. No damage.

Case 2: The opponents use UI to bid 4 over your 4. 4 was clearly going down and 4 is unbeatable. The Director correctly rolls it back to 4 down one. The damage came as a CONSEQUENCE of the UI.

Case 3: The opponents use UI to bid 4 over your 4. 4 was clearly going down and 4 makes. HOWEVER, 4 only made because of a revoke. Here, the non-offenders get NOTHING - the damsage came as a CONSEQUENCE of the revoke. It only came SUBSEQUENT to the UI.

In case 3, the score the offenders should get depends on the format of the event.

All this was expounded by Edgar Kaplan more than 30 years ago.
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And when the second player walks in at gametime and says I want to switch seats, you say…?
June 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit: Maybe on Planet Kit “jump” and “leap” mean different things.

On this planet the first synonym for “leap” is definitely “jump”. In the two dictionaries I looked up, the first synonym for “jump” was “leap”.

If you want to Humpty-Dumpty your way out of admitting that your statement “”Leaping to slam is always wrong." was inaccurate then, well, I guess you just did.
June 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Danny: That MIGHT be sufficient if

a) The seated player is able to answer ALL questions for the partnership
b) The non-seated player cannot ask to switch seats with his partner
June 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not in favor of ‘night before’ line ups. A team might want to wake up and see who's feeling fresher.
June 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There should be penalties for late arrival even in the RR. If there were, it would stop being an issue.

Of course an appeal would always be allowed if there is some legitimate reason. Case-by-case basis is the only path to fairness.
June 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“ I have not experienced problems with seating rights, using verbal notification of room choice by the non-seeded team. ”

I have. And I'm not alone. Focus on what is important. It's not the ‘United States Break Championships’.
June 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Have you never doubled a speculatively bid slam with an Ace and a void?”

Yes, but I always had 12 other cards when I did it.
June 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit: “Leaping to slam is always wrong.”

Not true. Sometimes leaping to a slam is the best and winning action. Because investigation might give away information that causes the slam to go down. So there are some times when you are virtually certain of the correct contract, and the percentage action is simply to bid it.

On this particular hand you are correct, and the weird but available Gerber bid should be made. But your generalization is not accurate.

Saying “always” is often (usually?) wrong.
June 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I’m holding xx AQJxxx xxxx and double….”

With that hand, you don't deserve to defeat ANY contract.
June 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ok, thx. Now I can sleep. Not sure what Oren was thinking.
June 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, there are legitimate reasons. Several.

1) What happens is that one will be told that one pair will be N-S and the other E-W. But when a pair reaches the room somebody will decide ‘the room is too cramped’ or ‘the lighting is bad’, so ‘We’re going to switch rooms ok?'
Now you may not want to switch rooms, but want to play against this pair. Do you have to be the ‘bad guy’ and complain? Furthermore, it could all be gamesmanship by them. They could have noticed where you had chosen to sit before and be trying to play against a particular pair - sometimes pairs prefer a direction. But now they see your choice, they switch back. And this could affect their future seating decisions.

2) Also what happens is a pair will say ‘we’re N-S', so you ask ‘who is North’? and receive an answer. Then when they get to the room, one of the players says, ‘I want to sit in the other seat because (say) I want to face the window’. Now, if you care, you either have to be the ‘bad guy’ or reveal that you care - which could affect future seatings.

3) Furthermore, why should you even have to ask ‘Who is North’.
Why should you have to reveal that you in any way care?

4) If the opponents are seated properly 5 minutes in advance, this gives the team with seeding rights the OPTION of sitting down early and having an exchange of CC's, SSF's and some discussion. This would save some time and enable the table to actually (gasp!) start on time.

It's not rocket science. Just be in your seats 5 minutes before game time. Stop the possibility of any ‘games’ (which are definitely sometimes played). And it's also better for the Directors. And for BBO.

In fact, for the first set of the day, or any set after a long break, ideal is that the the team without the seed is seated TEN minutes before game time, and the team with seeding rights is seated 5 minutes before.
June 28
.

Bottom Home Top