Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Oleg Rubinchik
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was not very hard to find the board in BBO archive. For the last month opponents in that partnership played in 4 ACBL tournaments with following results:
-3.70 Imps;
14.66 Imps;
49.99% Mps
-4.89 Imps
They also play in different partnership with approximately the same rate of success. (very small plus in average)

In the same tournament they meet the topic starter they missed slam and bid no chance 3NT instead of claimer 5 clubs.

Of course it is possible that they suddenly decides to cheat in that particular one hand, but I would say probability of it is very low.
March 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, Silodor Pairs is the part of NABC, so ACBL alert chart applied.
Lets read it: http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/AlertChart.pdf
“If played as natural, a direct cue-bid of a natural opening bid” is alertable"
So, if 1 was a natural bid, missing alert on the natural 2 is infraction.
March 19, 2018
Oleg Rubinchik edited this comment March 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congrats!
March 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Funny.
As far as I understand situation is:
1. NS pair has different agreements about they 2 bid over 2 opponents intervention after their 1NT opening:
It is for takeout if 2 promises or to play if 2 promises unspecified major.
2. EW pair has different agreements about they 2!intervention after opponents 1NT opening:
It shows after weak NT or unspecified major after strong NT.

All agreements were pre-alerted.

East claimed he did not see alert on 1NT opening, so took it as strong and bid 2 as unspecified major, that happened to be .

So the crux of the matter for me is the following: If pair has an agreement that depends on opponents agreement - do they have a responsibility to make sure about opponents agreement before explain their own agreement?

Logically they should. Actual agreement of EW pair is “if strong NT something if weak NT something else.” If East decided to explain the only part of the actual agreement it should be his responsibility to make sure he provides the “right part.”
Feb. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Absence of interesting team event is just one side of the coin. Entry fee is another one. Seems like about 75% of the open teams field have to pay 1600$ for just 2 days event,; as of now there is no free entree to any games for people knocked out of teams. Is not it just too expensive?
Feb. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, could you help me to understand about entry fees. I see that player entered in Rosenblum and eliminated in early stages could drop in in pairs; but I can not find if he needs to pay fee to play in pairs or entry fee paid to entry in Rosenblum covers following events?
Jan. 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
7 card suit, less then 12 points. Is not it clear 3 preemptive. :)
Jan. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Guessing between and
Dec. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do you play it differently for MP and IMPs? I believe actual situation was in IMPs.
Oct. 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Partner, I have a stopper. Please pass if you have 8 other tricks” :)
Oct. 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North is pulling, because redouble of South on the lead direction double from West means exactly: “Partner, my are bad and I am afraid of lead. Please pull if you cannot help me to stop hearts”
Oct. 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Bob,
I believe it happened against you when my partner bite of and almost choked with part of his pen.
By some reason he had pen in his mouth when he realized that I open 1NT with 6-5 in majors…
(I did not do it by purpose, had 15 points of following shape:
xxx
xxxxx
xx
xxx)
Oct. 3, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can recall about 20 cases when I made a wrong reply on Blackwood. Different reasons: by purpose, miscounted key cards, misbid, wanted to make one bid but actually made another “due to loss of concentration regarding the intent.”
I cannot recall the single instance when my wrong reply was based on _mechanical_ error.
Sept. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Psyching an Artificial opening bid” listed as “Disallowed Bidding Agreements.”
Because psyching by definition cannot be covered by agreement I don't think it is correct place to put it.
Aug. 29, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Size does not matter if penalty assigned consistently.
Aug. 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Dan,
I believe you are mistaken. Alerting and providing information in that case not only proper, but it is duty of the player according the law.
All information from the correct explanation is UI to partner, it would not benefit him, because if that UI used, directors are in good position to adjust result.
Of course no one wants to provide 100% detectable UI to his partner, so people often abuse common misconception that it would benefit partner.
East (who are competent in bridge rules, according the original post) must know it.
July 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And why do we need to “increase the number of similar contracts and similar opening leads on boards”? This supposed to be a bridge game tournament, not quiz solving competition.

As for robot caused luck … this particular luck you are trying to eliminate very strongly connected with skills.

There is a huge amount of pure luck we cannot take away, why to bother about that one.
I noticed several cases of huge difference on defense performed by robots on the same board with the ONLY difference was: one human declarer discarded from the DUMMY 2 from 732, and another discarded 3.
July 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, side question.
What about 1 bid by West. Was it alerted by East? If yes, what explanation was provided?
My thoughts are:
1. EW using Mathe, so 1 bid that does not promise more than 3 cards in hearts is alertable.
2. East has duty to alert alertable bid and explain it according the system, even if he knows partner mixed up the agreement.
July 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, it could be good idea or bad idea, but why should anyone to try to prohibit it?
July 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Doug.
Could you quote the law to confirm the following “The GiB opponents are being misinformed about what system the human is playing, which is a violation of the laws.”
I was under impression that opponents are entitled to know all _agreements_ only.
July 14, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top