Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Oleg Rubinchik
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, did not write the distribution down and cannot recall. LHO hold 18 points, two small . RHO 6 or 7 points, 6 card .
Distribution had nothing to do with result, declarer skills for that person are in a good match with other bridge skills.
Even if I would remember the play (I don't, sorry) I would never dare to demonstrate it on the family friendly site.

Just for illustration. In a different board against the same opposition I took 4 tricks without losing a single trick in the suit 1097хх across a singleton J.
Dec. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The most funny thing about it, they were not new players. LHO playing at least 5 years, RHO much more.
Dec. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the first commentator nailed it. Barometer is a little more fun, but it seems noticeable harder to run. It would be nice to have that opportunity once in a while, but that is about it.
By the way, Philadelphia Regional at Valley Forge is one of the most pleasant tournaments.
Dec. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was very lucky to have a friend with timeshare there. We stayed almost by free, cooked home, and all parking and transportation to airport expenses were shared by 4 of us.
I also got unbielively good price for flight ($114 NYC - Orlando round trip).
As a result entry fee was about half of my spending for that NABC.
Dec. 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I understand her point correctly, ACBL consider removing titles from teammates of cheater as punishment (disciplinary action) and looking in CDR for guides.
Logically speaking it is wrong. Innocent teammates did not commit any disciplinary violations and there is no reasons to punish them.
But title they won with help of cheating teammates simply should be recognized as not valid. Rectification, not punishment.
Dec. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe so, but could you show me part of regulation that was broken? (Not a rhetoric question, I just don't know and would like to know).
Dec. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just for the sake of arguments.
Let imagine that, completely hypothetical situation.
You inform opponents that you are using strong club system and they announce their defense against your 1 club opening. Defense does not look playable for you, because certain bids covered too wide specter of hands. In addition, descriptions of some bid are partially overlapping. “We use our judgment and table presence to select one from the few permitted by system bids,” explain opponents.
Is anything wrong so far? If yes, please refer to regulations.

You open 1 club, opponent used their judgment to choose intervention bid from one end of the permitted specter of hands and you found out that your default agreement for cases like that (let’s say negative doubles) does not for well against their defense.

After losing 11 IMPs you discussed with your partner (at the table, of cause) to use penalty doubles against that intervention bid from opponents.

Surprise, surprise! Now opponents using their judgment to made that bid only if they have cards from the opposite end of the permitted specter.

Is anything wrong with that picture?
Dec. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Could you clarify what are “unanticipated disruption methods” used by your opponents?
Dec. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Bob,
3.
Here is to ACBL suggested defense:
“Note: Direct bids are sound. Delayed bids are lighter.
Defense:
After a 2-level transfer preempt:
Double = 13-15 HCP balanced or strong.
2NT = 16-18 HCP, Respond as after a 2NT overcall of a weak 2-bid.
Cuebid = Takeout of suit shown.
3NT = To play.
Other calls are as over an opening preempt in suit shown.”
Link: http://web2.acbl.org/defensedatabase/mc09.pdf

Having this defense in hand I simple cannot bid 2 intending as Michaels, as I did at the table. I had to choose between pass and 2 … probably pass based on the Note, my partner is a very aggressive balancer. How would bidding go is not clear, but if opponents follow rules we would not be in the same position. I believe link between accident and lack of defense is as hard as it could be.

2. Agree. Honestly, I personally was extremely thankful to opponents for not letting us to play multi. I played that match with my second favorite partner who undeservingly (in my opinion) in love with multi. I found it easy to agree to use it, than to convince him that it is not the best convention. When they called a director to prohibit us to use multi, I felt like Christmas is here. Actually magic continued during the first half of the match, every card was on the right place for us and we were leading very comfortably. On the second half that opponents run from us to another table and … well … we did not win the match. :)
But all the above does not cancel the fact why I describe the situation - director does not allow as to play multi based on the fact that suggested defense on site was changed 2 days ago and we have printouts of the old version.

1. Sorry, 4a is not applied here, because we have only 1 known suit:
“4. a) JUMP OVERCALLS INTO A SUIT to indicate at least 5–4 distribution in two known suits and responses thereto.”
I verified with directors if the can play it on the last National. Answer is: “only after artificial 1 and ”could be short“ treated as natural if only 4432 allowed”
Dec. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, it was exactly crux of the matter. After discussion with fellow directors, our director asked our opponents exactly this and ruled accordingly. Absolutely correct ruling as far as I can see.
Dec. 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Ron.
It is correct, that my partner replied 2 suites, but his understanding was based on his own cards, not on agreement or meta-agreement.
I know he was not supposed to reply based on his cards, but sometimes source of the knowledge is not obvious.
We discussed situation after session and figure out that our meta-agreement is actually take-out, we both let our cards influence opinion about agreements.
As for my side information from the partner reply in UI, I am always trying my best to ignore it, in hope that other players and directors follow rules too.
Nov. 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was so hard to prove that “I am not a robot” that I actually started to have some doubts about my identity :)
Just kidding. Thanks for the service.
Nov. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry for offtop. Real story that made me laugh.
I am playing in a weak club with very old partner.
I am dummy, lead and partner discards from her hand.
Me: “No , partner?”
Partner: “What did you say? I forgot to turn on my hearing device.”
LHO (to me): “She revoked, she had .”
RHO (to his partner): “No, she did not. What you see in her hand is Queen third of .”
Nov. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course it is true. But bridge players not always do what they supposed to do and in this case Laws 70D3 of Duplicate Bridge actually tells TD how to proceed.
“In accordance with Law 68D, play should have
ceased, but if any play has occurred after the
claim, this may provide evidence to be deemed
part of the clarification of the claim. The Director
may accept it as evidence of the players’ probable
plays subsequent to the claim and/or of the accuracy
of the claim.”
Oct. 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I copied it from the problem # 1 of the test of “10th EBL Main Tournament Directors Course”. http://www.eurobridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/courses/workshops/Prague16/2016%20Main%20Test%20with%20Answers.pdf
Here is the related part of the answer:
"The way to go down is almost impossible to be found even double dummy, thus we can be sure that without having been disturbed by West's request, North would have made nine tricks”
Test takers were supposed to choose the following as the correct answer:
“Deems it is barely possible for North to go down two, thus considers that North's mistake is West's responsibility and awards 4 -1.”

Seems like I am not the only one who found that ridiculous.
Oct. 31, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
nice :)
Oct. 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Several years ago, I played with relatively unfamiliar partner in a sectional, not even a club, game.
Partner made bid we never discuss.
I alerted and explained that we had no agreements.
At first, I was lectured by opponents that “I cannot play if we have no agreements.”
Then they called director.
Director gave us another lecture, then asked what I expect that bid to mean. I replied.
Director checked my partner's hand and confirm it is correct. Nice.
I asked director if that information is authorized for me. He walked out without answering my question. (I have strong accent, so it is possible he simply did not understand what I ask.)
Oct. 24, 2016
Oleg Rubinchik edited this comment Oct. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Adding polish style forcing but not necessary strong systems could be useful.
Oct. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unfortunately yes:)
In a real life he had:
7xx 9xx 7xx 7xxx
Oct. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>I am still not sure whether pd can or can not have something like
Yes, partner can hold any of hands you draw.
Oct. 20, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top