Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nick Warren
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 27 28 29 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Highly unusual” is not in the wording of the regulations.

If your side wins the contract it may be polite to invite opps to ask for an explanation of the auction - but that is etiquette afaik, not regulation.
May 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“unrealistic” is perhaps a little OTT. I agree a club seems the most likely to work for the best, especially at imps, but I can imagine a spade working better sometimes.
April 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
.
April 6, 2017
Nick Warren edited this comment April 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Quite so. And dummy can also call at the end of the hand.
April 4, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The difference is that 4 is a raise and to play. 2 that may be a (223)6 shape or 4=4=4=1 expecting opps to cooperate in your rescue with an X is not.
March 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Frances, that XX is SOS is not the point I am really objecting to. XX as SOS is common (or fairly common) knowledge.

It is that 2, ostensibly natural but could be something else entirely and not alerted as a convention should be considered common bridge knowledge, when it is clearly nothing of the sort.

Edit - perhaps it is the way it is worded in BB (as presumably quoted accurately above). It sounds to me like the BB is implying 2 used in this way does not need an alert. If that is what it means, then it is to my mind rubbish of the worst sort. If it is implying that XX does not need an alert, then it is fine - but badly worded.
March 20, 2017
Nick Warren edited this comment March 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, I don't really understand the distinction.

I play one session at club “A” where the standard is about average, maybe marginally above. Over the years I've partnered a large % of the people who play there. I've never once been asked to play this runout there or come across it played by others.

I play quite often at another club “B” where there are many county level players and some premier league players - mainly with the same partner. I've never encountered it there.

I also play imp bridge in the county league. I've never come across it there.

Nor do I remember reading about it in any book.

I don't know whether this comes under your idea of common knowledge or knowledge available to players, but it still seems to me that the assertion in the BB is completely fatuous.
March 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>“However it is not up to the poor TD to write up the rules - merely to implement them.”

The TD can only implement that which he/she is aware of. I was not aware, most definitely wouldn't not have expected it and would have oceans of sympathy with someone who complained that it had not been alerted.

The assertion in the BB that this is common knowledge couldn't be more wrong if it tried.
March 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It may well have been in the BB for years - what real difference does that make. I'm a more avid reader of these things than most, but the last time I read it in detail the book was Orange.

Anyway, the minutiae of regulation aside, it simply is not played anywhere where I play. And I can see several players indignantly calling me as director that such a 2 bid had not been alerted. If anyone claims that it is common bridge knowledge where I am, then they are most definitely 100% wrong. How can they be otherwise when the convention - and it is a convention by any plain English definition of the term - is simply unheard of.
March 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMO the comment in the blue book is just plain wrong. It may well be general bridge knowledge amongst expert and streetwise players. It definitely is not general bridge knowledge amongst average club players.
March 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Again you should call the director. Though it has to be said that there are those who hesitate routinely in this sort of situation in a club setting and you can use their tendency against them.
March 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, of course.
March 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
mine's a whiskey
March 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
down two vulnerable (match points, part score board)
ghestem strikes again
Sorry partner. Forgot.
What's the damage?
You only had…
March 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've yet to see a convincing argument in favour of transfer completion including a weak NT with 2 cards anyway. Sure it has its good points, but the version where completion shows 3 does too.
March 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There was an interesting article on 3rd suit forcing in the EBU mag:

https://view.pagetiger.com/weifw09v/4g87fg0ye8rgfb/page22.htm
March 3, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wow. You're at least as cynical as I am!
March 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Richard. For those that play exclusively at unaffiliated clubs, kitchen bridge etc., just how much do you think they care about being EBU members?
March 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A lot of people hear Stayman, pay little heed to the response, and think dummy has a major, so don't lead one. If the response denies a major, you should be thinking not so much in term of dummy having a major, but declarer, the hand you're leading into, having at least 7 minor cards.

I have some sympathy with you getting fixed like this, but I've seen far more egregious examples in club bridge. Making rules has virtually no effect on people who don't read them and have been doing what they've been doing for years - witness the number of people who open an Acol 2 (or the equivalent) on hands that are nowhere near the sort of quality a good player would expect.
Feb. 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you're right. It seems as reasonable as anything to play for partner for something like Jxxx Ax Kxxxx Tx and we're looking for a club, trump, diamond and diamond ruff in that order.

I have next to no experience playing forcing NT and constructive raises like this - but anyway declarer is left with AKx T8xxx AQx Jx. Seems plausible enough to my inexperienced eye.

But I'm not particularly enamoured of your “if it doesn't win…” comment. By all means have a word with partner if it doesn't, but you should develop a “trust partner” frame of mind.
Feb. 22, 2017
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 27 28 29 30
.

Bottom Home Top