Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Gill
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Speaking as another person who got caught up in this, it certainly was frustrating but hardly the end of the world. The issue was that the initial board placements were not boards that were together. Our first two boards were correct (19-20), but when we got to our second table they had just played 17 and 21 and got passed 15 and 23. Honestly it seems more likely that the error was made in stacking the boards initially, since it would be weird for the director to pick out non-adjoining boards for no reason.
July 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think if you're going after hearts, there is a very strong argument for crossing in spades to lead a heart up. This prevents them from untangling HJx opposite H9xx and probably will get LHO to duck from Hx if he should happen to hold that.
July 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Speaking on the record as someone who admittedly

1) Is playing in the Open GNT this year and
2) Feels that making Friday before losing is definitely a possible result

I believe, and I think so would most people in my position that
losing Thursday and getting to play LM Pairs is strongly preferable to losing Friday, which means losing out on (hopefully) two days of national events. It seems wrong that circumstances should cause me to want to do *worse* in any particular event. For the record I would be happy to lose on Saturday in GNTs and miss LM pairs.

Yes, it is possible to implement this in a way such that the externalities it causes outweigh the positives, but that seems to be a reason to think hard about and change the implementation if necessary, not to avoid it entirely. So yeah, I'm very relieved about this (and also hopeful I won't need to avail myself of it for the better of the two possible reasons!)
July 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner held Axx KQJxx Ax Axx. Slam makes if the opponents lead the wrong minor, probably you get there regardless of whether you bid 1/3/4.
June 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm surprised more people aren't raising diamonds. Partner really shouldn't bid this way without a singleton somewhere or slam interest. Surely we'll be happy with raising to tell him about the 5-support if he has slam interest. If he just has a normal game force with a singleton, we are looking at only one stopper and needing 9 peelers. Meanwhile, 5 seems very likely to have play at the least and will frequently be cold.

Also it seems bizarre to me to think that 3M here without discussion would be anything except values and doubt about 3NT, particularly if partner does not hold 4 in the other major.
June 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At the table, I passed, which seems to be the consensus action. I thought it was very close - this time partner held Kxx x AQTxxx Axx so 3NT is basically cold from your side and no worse than 50/50 from partner's side. The board was pushed in 2 making 4 in reality.
May 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also, we play that 2 is 5+, 6-7 (and F1) and 2 is 6-7 with 3spt. This always seemed clearly better to me since you leave more room for the non-fit auction, but I'm not sure I've seen anyone else play it that way.
March 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I give partner two aces for his 6-7 points I still might go down in game!
March 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have always played a free bid opposite a power double to be GF. Admittedly my min for a power X is higher than most (this is right on the border for me), but it seems like walking too fine a line to try to stop when one of you has 18+ and the other has enough to feel like he needs to stick his nose in. This also makes these auctions so much better since you wouldn't have to jump or Q with this shape and another K.
March 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this is a really good problem. My original thought was to pitch but I'm changing that. Pitching loses immediately when both heart honors are wrong (seems like more than 25% given their HCP distribution) or hearts are 4-1 either way, which I think is too much compared to the failure conditions for the ruffing line.

My line would be ruff, to K (surely RHO will give count here), ruff, to A. I think it's important to start here because if RHO does have a stiff club, I might still have a play provided I don't let him ruff a high club. Then, K, ruff. A, ruff. If everyone follows to all that, I ruff a diamond and figure out which black thing to try to ruff. If LHO has a normal shape like 4234 or 4243 I can't really go wrong. If he has 3343 I will have to guess based on their T2 club count signal. Worst case for me is probably diamonds 4-4 and spades 5=2, since RHO can pitch his 4th diamond.
March 15, 2016
Mike Gill edited this comment March 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I were weaker or stronger I would probably raise. This hand is strong enough that they are unlikely to have (or even try for) a slam and extremely unlikely to miss their 25 HCP+ game if they are good. I don't want partner to lead a spade and blow a trick and they just might stop to double us in 3s and something tells me that's probably going to be very bad for me. Against opponents who are not good enough to double and prone to overbidding I might raise but I think it's a losing proposition against strong opponents.
March 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ok, I think I understand the disconnect now (or at least the disconnect for me). There are two ways of looking at this

1) In isolation, the UI does not really suggest pass or 6 demonstrably because a hand that would bid 5 opposite a NF 3 bid will frequently offer strong play for slam. Since the UI doesn't really suggest one option over the other, North can use his judgment.

2) By comparison to the AI, the UI suggests passing, since bidding on is clear opposite the AI but a tossup opposite the UI. Therefore, pass is demonstrably suggested because bidding is so much clearer from just the AI.

I had been thinking more along 1, but I believe Kit and others are thinking along the lines of 2.
Feb. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let's suppose for a minute that

1) everyone agrees that neither pass nor 6 were strongly indicated by the UI here (clearly not true here)
2) everyone agrees that passing is obviously wrong given the AI you have

Would a successful pass be allowed in these circumstances? I'm really asking to make sure I understand how this is supposed to work. My impression before this discussion would have been that if the UI does not indicate anything, effectively you have no UI and can use your judgment as you please.

Feb. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe in an egregious case like

1 p 2 (really slow) p

and opener just invites on a 5-5 20 count and responder rejects then puts down 4333 with two Queens. I think this kind of logic should be reserved for completely clearcut cases, particularly where the UI might have demonstrably suggested something based on partnership experience, not bridge logic. Otherwise we're just guessing what's going on in someone's head.

In a decision like this, it seems far likelier that the person just made a clear judgment error or just didn't think it through all the way. For the record, raise seems percentage to me, but nowhere near auto enough to say it had to be UI-based.
Feb. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are right about my point, but by my understanding of how these issues should be approached, I don't think you are right about the conclusion. Look at Kit's order of questions:

1) Is there UI?
2) Does the UI demonstrably suggest anything?

If the answer to 2 is no, then that is the end of the case by my understanding (except maybe a PP if the UI was egregious or something). If nothing is ‘demonstrably suggested’ then how could the player have taken advantage of it? Yes, consensus seems to be that 6 is standout but that is irrelevant, right? That just means the player made what was (assuming the consensus is correct) a judgment error in a slam auction and (s)he got lucky.
Feb. 23, 2016
Mike Gill edited this comment Feb. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My assertion is purely that it's not demonstrably suggested, that's all. Kit's logic except for that part seems, as per usual, clearly correct. We all agree (I think) that if no action is suggested by the UI, there is no ethical problem and North can do as he pleases.

Yes, the fact that partner's diamonds are shorter/weaker than AI says clearly suggests argues for passing. However, the fact that we have a massively better hand than partner thinks equally clearly suggests that we bid. You can argue (and presumably you are) that the diamond thing is more important, and maybe you'd be right - it just doesn't seem clear to me at all.

Edit: Just saw your question. Actually, I have almost no experience playing a 2+ 1 (we play 0+). I am operating under the assumption that in standard precision 3 would be constructive, NF, and show 5+ diamonds (maybe 4 in a pinch with, say 2245 and a good hand). If that's not the case, then probably I'm wasting everyone's time, heh.
Feb. 23, 2016
Mike Gill edited this comment Feb. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I might be, but I'm pretty sure you are missing my point as well. What the AI says is irrelevant unless the UI demonstrably suggests something. I'm arguing that if it had gone the other way, the other side could say the UI suggests bidding 6. If one can sensibly argue that the UI suggests either options, then everything else is irrelevant, right?
Feb. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I must be missing something - I hold a much stronger hand than partner thinks I have and this doesn't suggest bidding more? I'll grant I showed more diamonds than I have, but surely it's odds on that partner holds length/strength in diamonds to blast 5♦ without investigating alternative strains.
Feb. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
moved
Feb. 23, 2016
Mike Gill edited this comment Feb. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So here's the thing that interests me. Let's say 5 was raised to 6 and declarer (who holds, say, x Kx KJTxx AKxxx) wraps it. Opponents call the director and say that the 6 took advantage of UI - this hand is a prime 13 count with a singleton and partner bid game opposite what might have been some random 8 count. It seems to me this claim would and should be taken seriously. It can't be both ways, right?
Feb. 23, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top