Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Narsingh D Agnish
1 2 3 4 5 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It already is. An overcall of 2 over opening bid of 1 to show clubs is an alert bid (as is natural 2 over opening 1).
Dec. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the bigger problem is opening bid of 1 which more and more often is based on one or two . My preference: a double of “could be short” 1 is a take out double of 1 (in standard auction, the opener would have bid 1), overcall of 2 is natural as is jump to 3 (preemptive). I'll use somewhat similar scheme if the opponent announces that opening bid of 1 could be as short as one: 2 and 3 are natural and double is takeout (with interest in majors).
Dec. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Bill for your kindness towards novices. By the way, if I revoke, lead out of turn, or perform any irregularity, I ALWAYS call the director no matter who the opponents are.
Dec. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perfect hand to bid 3 NT but what if there were no club Queen. Suspecting that 3 NT “… was doomed from the actions at the other table”, would a pass raise some suspicion. Is it possible to look around for another playing director who might have already played the hand?
Dec. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not if you calmly explain what the irregularity was and what the penalty would have been had you called the director. And also explain why you are not enforcing the penalty (I would have gained two undeserved tricks or you would have lost two properly-won tricks). Remember, this post is all about experts playing against novices. I am all in favor of calling the director in all other situations. I am in favor of waiving penalties ONLY when the irregularity did not cost me a trick. I am just against gaining undeserved tricks against NOVICES.
Dec. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am surprised at this reaction. I suppose gaining two totally undeserved tricks against a weak nervous opponent is perfectly legal (he must be punished for doing the wrong thing) and my waiving the penalty and not accepting the same totally undeserved two tricks is “illegal.” Of course, you don't care if that poor soul were to never return to the bridge club again.
Dec. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the 3rd paragraph, “… and not forfeit their gain ..” should read “… and forfeit their gain …”. Sorry for the typo.
Dec. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A while back I had commented about the health (or lack of) of one professional bridge player while praising the good health of his partner. I was told in no uncertain terms that I should mind my own business.
Dec. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
NO. You just fill a box for 3+ (opening diamond bid). Should I just assume that they never open one diamond with just two? I have seen players open one heart/spade with just 4 cards when their CC says 5+. Do I lose my right to gain additional information about their bidding style just because I looked at their CC?
Dec. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had a similar experience. Playing in a sectional tournament, my RHO opened one diamond. I overcalled 2 diamonds which we play as natural and so alerted the opponents. LHO doubled and all passed. Before the opening lead was made, I requested the RHO to see his CC. It was marked as 3 plus for diamond opening. I then asked the LHO if they would sometimes open one diamond with just two diamonds. Before she could answer, RHO chimed in with “you have already seen our CC, why are you asking her these questions.” Sure, you can fill a box but that is not the whole story. I have every right to know their bidding tendencies, etc. I neither called the director nor made any insulting remarks, just kept my cool. PS: I was down two for minus 500, they can make six clubs or 3 NT (all vulnerable).
Dec. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have no sympathy for North, Any time you overcall at the two level with such a defensive hand, you deserve the result. Lack of alert is just an excuse in an attempt to improve one's score.
Dec. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wouldn't it be a nice gesture on the part of Levin and Grue to withdraw their appeal and stand aside so that the originally declared winners of Blue Ribbon are re-confirmed. The entire bridge community will be delighted at such a sporting gesture.
Dec. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
According to the bulletin write-up, the comment was made while they waited for the tray: “Maybe I should not have done that because partner might be void.” I presume the comment was made after East bid 7 NT.
Dec. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree. A player who has a history of out-of-turn leads needs to be identified and appropriate actions taken against him.
Nov. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just to add a note of clarification (which I should have included in my original post). Again, a direct quote from “Ruling the Game:”… even if declarer made an honest error when he called for the A from dummy and the next player followed, Law 72C still applies. Intent is irrelevant. It only matters that a player could have known at the time of his irregularity that it could work to his advantage." In other words, any time an irregularity occurs, the director MUST assume that the offender knew exactly what he was doing. I personally think this is an excellent idea. It takes the pressure off the director as he does not need to stand there and psychoanalyze the offender to determine if it was an honest mistake or an intentional one.
Nov. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree 100%. It is best when both partners play the same convention. Reminds me of an “accident.” Over my one heart opening, partner jumped to 3 clubs which I play as preemptive and weak while my partner plays as Bergen raises. It was an utter disaster.
Nov. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about introducing chess clocks?
Nov. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Alex for the kind words. Yes, I really enjoyed playing for many years at the Saskatoon Bridge Club, met a lot of wonderful people many of whom are sadly no more.
Oct. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“… and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction.” In my case, the declarer clearly had 13 tricks and her revoke on trick one did nor harm the non-offending side nor the offending side gained any advantage (she was going to win the first trick by playing her heart Ace had she not trumped my heart King). In the case cited in the Bulletin, declarer had the last three tricks and no damage was done to the non-offending side by the revoke (if I were the defender, after leading a club I would have simply conceded the last three tricks; I also wonder why the declarer did not just claim the last three tricks).

As to Law 12B2 “The Director may not award an adjusted score on the grounds that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.” Well according to the advice in the Bulletin, a revoke is a revoke and a one trick penalty is a must. I find that unduly severe.
Oct. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Alex, I don't think you would have done that and, yes, I'll do the same when a similar situation arises in the future.
Oct. 23, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6
.

Bottom Home Top