Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Oren Kriegel
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 86 87 88 89
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(1) might be a useful question, but it's tainted by the fact that at this point South knows North thinks the double shows 5-7, so it's in his interest to agree with that, or at least hedge.

(2) is certainly useful, but you should not tell the pollees what South purports to think the double means.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Probably they are, but it would likely have a specialized meaning.

My point is not that Grue-Moss would have this auction, but that an average player might not know what standard bidding theory is, particularly about Precision or other strong-club systems.

My example meant to show that someone with “the slightest interest” in Precision (say, enough interest to watch one deal) could watch a prominent pair playing Precision have this auction, where the double shows a game-force.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Exactly, Max. If you poll (who I imagine to be, based on the information in this thread) South's peers and confront them with an undiscussed auction to 3NT, a significant number will pass because that's what they do when partner bids 3NT in undiscussed auctions.

Far fewer of them would pass 3NT with this hand if they hear partner say (effectively), “3NT, but I have 20 points.” The explanation means North is playing adjective bridge. I have no problem with letting the result stand if South's peers can infer North's range without the UI, but if they don't/can't, then I think you have to adjust the score to 3NT making whatever.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure, but North-South are probably not experts, and plenty of non-experts think jumps in notrump show minimum hands in game-forcing auctions. If this South player (or his peers) are that type of player, then that's how the director should rule.

You could ask if they have an agreement, but you probably won't get a useful response. Polling peers will at least give some information that isn't tainted by a potentially self-serving response. (My bet would be on South shrugging when asked a question like that. I would pose the question in a 2/1 auction, e.g. 1-2-3NT and see what he thinks the range is.)
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure, if that was South's mindset, then the jump to 3NT would show extra values, which is AI.

However:

a) we don't know that was South's mindset
b) North's explanation gives South a lock that North has extra values

If South thought the double was a game-force or simply didn't know what it showed, then North's explanation has provided UI in a situation where pass was, in fact, an LA to this South player.

A poll would help here, as Kit has noted. Tell the players something like, “Partner's 1 opening is artificial and shows 16+ HCP. You do not have an agreement about your double, but you choose that call anyway. Partner rebids 3NT. What call do you make?”

Plenty of players pass when they don't know what's happening (even in clearly-forcing-to-you-or-me auctions). Pass is almost always a logical alternative to that type of player. If South is the pass-out-of-fright type, then North's explanation has given South UI that this is not a good time to pass out of fright. Polling South's peers may not be a perfect solution but it is better than applying expert judgment to a player who, in all likelihood, is nowhere near expert class.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh, I don't know, you could have watched a top pair playing Precision–Grue-Moss, for instance–and seen their double here guarantee a game-forcing hand and “guess” that that's what a double shows in “standard” Precision.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Surely, a double will promise at least a 5-count.”

Yes, but surely there are other agreements you could play about the minimum for a double. A leap to 3NT facing what might be a 5-count is much different than a leap to 3NT facing a minimum that puts North-South in a game-force.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, some players have the misguided idea that jumps to 3NT in forcing auctions show minimum hands. If North and/or South belong to this group, then there is a case for enforcing a pass on South if South thinks his double shows a game-force.

I agree with your assessment about North's 3NT call, but I suspect that what is on your or my radar is not particularly relevant to what is on this South player's radar. Kit's suggestion above to poll players and see if passing a 3NT rebid in the absence of UI is a logical alternative to this class of player. If it is, then the UI suggests bidding on and South must pass.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was South. Ben and I had no agreements other than hastily agreeing to play option 2 when we realized our opponents were playing Multi. (You can see us floundering over Multi a few boards before. It was nice to be able to get even so quickly.)

I did have a wire that West was going to pull, because he had alerted this sequence as pass/correct a few boards earlier, so it was easy to pass.
June 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I spoke to Steve about this hand after the session. He admits that he might have played it wrong, but he thinks the difference between the two possible lines is minuscule. He estimated a 1% difference between the two lines.
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why was this a seemingly easy hand? Seems very difficult to me.

A common start was (1) 4 (P) 4NT, after which overcaller showed two keycards with a void somewhere. Looking at:

Axx
Q9x

AKQ10xxx

which keycards do you think partner has? If the AK, claim 7. If the A, A, partner might have the J and win a finesse, or partner might have eight hearts and they split 1-1.

Obviously when you're off the A it looks ridiculous to bid 7 but give the players some credit.
May 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Strongly disagree. The top few teams do get seeding points for high finishes in the round robin. As someone aptly put it yesterday, it makes more sense to seed an event based on lifetime performance (or at least the last few years) rather than two days.
May 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I imagine you are largely joking, but I'll make a serious attempt to explain my abstention. (What else is there to do at 1 am?)

I don't read it as compelling a vote from all juniors, just requesting non-juniors not to vote.

Having done no more than skim the new charts and the pursuant discussion, I don't feel that I can make an educated vote.

A regulation that might “restrict one's ability to psyche 1NT” would not reduce the game's appeal to me, but I am not a typical case among juniors. That doesn't mean I would favor such a regulation.



Some things I would like more clarity on (and I realize many of the answers might be available elsewhere, but I'll content myself with remaining in a state of unenlightenment at the moment):

Many commentators have talked about “disallowing psychs” in various circumstances. I would want to know how the new language (and eventual practices, although obviously those will not be able to be gauged until after the charts go into effect) compares to the current language and practices.

Is opening an X-range 1NT with Y points “disallowed” in the same sense that opening 1NT with a small singleton is currently disallowed?

There is no universal understanding among players or directors about what the current rules are about some of these things. Is it illegal (currently) to agree to open a Precision 1 with 9 HCP? What if those 9 HCP are the AKQ10x?

Will opening 1NT with a “wrong” number of points be subject to immediate penalty? Or will it require recorder forms to establish a pattern of deviation/psyching?
March 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One obvious reason that comes to mind, not talking about differences between the Spring and Summer NABCs in general, is that the limited KO in the Spring is a 10k even when the Mini Spingolds in the summer are (now) limited to 6k. Some of those 6-10k players might be entering the 10k KO in the Spring but the open Spingold in the Summer.

I haven't done any research to back this up, so I might be totally off-base, but that's my intuition.
March 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
By not taking the relay to 2.
March 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hugh would open 2, I'm sure, but doesn't that make 1 the very bad bid, not 4?

Having opened 1 (perhaps Hugh was indisposed at the time), what should North do besides raise to 4?
March 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Even if 2 is GF and 4 is looking for slam, does N really have much more to show?”

Yes! How about them ace-king of trumps? Pretty good cards, not at all “pretty much shown … by bidding out his shape.” Holding good trumps alone almost always warrants cooperating with a slam-try, and this North hand also has good spades. That's two more things North should want to show.

North could hold a variety of hands with the same number of high-cards and same shape, such as this respectable collection that makes slam, well, odds-against:

KQxx
x
KJx
QJxxx

“South seems to me to be the one with extras not shown.”

Even granting that premise (which is not true), how is South supposed to show those extras? By bidding slam? The auction has reached 5 by this point, unless you think South should have done something different earlier in the auction (like what?).

Who would receive the blame for reaching slam opposite a hand like the one above? (Or, worse, a hand without the J.) I suppose North must, for having less than the values he has shown.
March 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4 over 2 is the sort of bid that should never be made (OK, maybe with 4=0=4=5 distribution). Yes, it's easy to say, “singleton heart, diamonds, etc. etc.” but North has no reason to think that South is aiming at diamonds when he bids 2.

If North bids 4 and South was coming in clubs, the whole auction is off the rails. If South was too strong for a 3NT rebid and was hoping to be able to show his range after 2, the whole auction is off the rails (is 4NT Blackwood? if so, what does South do with, say, 3=3=4=3 shape and a 17-count?). If South was planning on raising spades, the whole auction is off the rails, unless South is satisfied bidding 4, 5, or 6.

The actual auction looks accurate to me, up until North's 5 bid. North has a perfectly reasonable hand with great trumps, so cooperating is beyond automatic. Note that South has the totally wasted K and slam is (virtually) cold barring 4-0 trumps opposite North's hand. That should make it clear who should have done more.
March 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The voices from the choir saying, “how could anyone miss XYZ scoring error?” are way out of touch.

I just finished playing this event with Bart Bramley, who is a very through player and extremely detail oriented. He handled all the scorekeeping duties for our partnership.

That didn't stop there from being several scoring errors, including some where the players miscounted the tricks that were taken or put the score on the wrong side of the line.

It's much easier to be fastidious with the scorekeeping if you have plenty of time in the rounds to do it. As many tables were routinely running 5+ minutes behind, the scorekeeping became someone shouting, “enter the score!” before running off to the next table. (Sidebar: this evening, almost every pair was moving every round, so it's not like the North-South pairs could check the scores of the previous round during some dead time, because neither pair was still at the table.)
March 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One terrible thing about playing Kickback is that players so often infer things from its use that are not obvious.

It would not occur to me that playing Kickback had any bearing on this auction.

Nor do I think, “If the bid above four of the trump suit is your keycard ask, then 4NT does not ask for heart keycards in any event,” is an accurate statement. There are plenty of events where you might play 4NT as a keycard ask in hearts when the auction has not reached 4, even playing Kickback. Here is an example I thought of in about 5 seconds:

1 (P) 1 (2)
2 (4) ?

I don't know about you, but playing Kickback, it seems obvious to me that 4NT is keycard for hearts here.
March 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 86 87 88 89
.

Bottom Home Top