Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rajeev Jog
1 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After 4N RKCB, won't 5N become a King Ask?

Assuming 5N is beyond the Kickback King Ask, when is it Pick-a-Slam vs Grand Slam Force? Or rather what are suggested agreements around this?
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, thanks for the pointer to Richard Pavlicek's site. I'm summarizing below for everyone's reference.

Bidding five in a major suit as a voluntary action (not competitive) is a slam invitation. In the old days this was just a general slam try, but modern methods give it a specific meaning, according to the auction.

1. If your side has bid all but one suit, it asks for control in the unbid suit.

2. If the enemy has bid, it asks for control in the enemy suit.

3. Holding the guarded king in the concerned suit, you should (reply) 5 NT to suggest 6 NT.

4. With first-round control in the concerned suit, you may make a control-bid as a grand-slam try. (if there is room. For completeness, from the ACBL article by Eddie Kantar: if you have a stiff in the unbid/enemy suit, then bid 6M).

5. If a single suit cannot be pinpointed, it asks for good trumps relative to the previous bidding. (this is a bit vaguer than the (old-fashioned?) “2 of top 3 honors”)

6. If your side has made a weak bid AND either opponent has acted, bidding five in a major is not a slam try. It is an obstructive bid. (The emphasis in the original on the “and” suggests that, over weak/pre-emptive bids that are not countered by opponents, 5M is still a slam try; but in this case it would default to #5).
July 10
Rajeev Jog edited this comment July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry to confuse everything. N bid 4 so S does indeed bid 5.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“More defense against precision to come.”

Searched but could not find any updates. Would love to know of various approaches to compete against Precision.
May 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's odd to allow a “normal” line of play which is different from what the declarer explicitly stated she would do, i.e. “run the clubs”. The play would “deviate” from the “stated line of play” ONLY when she lost the fourth club to the J and then North would normally play two winning spades.

The next time I don't know how to make a contract, I should just claim it and hope director director can find me a “normal” line of play that makes the contract.
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Georgiy
“Continuing playing clubs carelessly after they don't split is a normal play, especially given the careless claim.”

To be fair, given what I know of this declarer's skill level, once she noticed the clubs didn't break, she would have cashed the A.

The only reason I called the director was that at the same venue I was penalized (not the same director) for a somewhat careless claim without stating precisely how it would make - the contract was making every which way but I needed to have made the claim “if this happens I do X or if that happens I do Y” etc. (or just played it out).
April 14
Rajeev Jog edited this comment April 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Paul: She played the Q saw !x from South and then claimed.
April 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks everyone for the great comments. But I was hoping to hear a more judicial answer based on interpreting Rule 70, specifically how to interpret the following.

Rule 70A: “any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved
against the claimer.”

Rule 70D: (1) Declarer did not claim anything about switching the line of play if the clubs did not break. (2) OTOH North's -1 claim depends on South not discarding the K. BUT…discarding or not discarding are NOT “normal” alternatives, i.e. a normal player would have no choice but to KEEP the K.

BTW both declarer and I are regular paying customers and play this game regularly. I don't think either of us would stop playing regardless of director's ruling.

Rule 70:

A. General Objective
In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer. The Director proceeds as follows.

D. Director’s Considerations
1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal(2) line of play that would be less successful.

2. The Director does not accept any part of a defender’s claim that depends on his partner selecting a particular play from among alternative normal(2) plays.

E. Unstated Line of Play
1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any
normal(2) line of play.
April 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
+1 for playbridge
Jan. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
LOL you are correct. Extraneous information.
Dec. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for pointing this out, posted again.
Dec. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can I ask an Admin to delete this post?
Dec. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was played on 12 tables in an open pairs event with average holding of about 3000 masterpoints. On all but 3 tables NS bid beyond 1S.

Results:
3♥X W -4 800 - 11 0
3NT N 9 400 - 10 1
2♠ S 10 170 - 9 2
2♥ W -3 150 - 8 3
3♠ S 9 140 - 6 5
2♠ S 9 140 - 6 5
3♠ S 9 140 - 6 5
2NT N 8 120 - 4 7
2♠ S 8 110 - 2.5 8.5
2♠ S 8 110 - 2.5 8.5
1NT W -1 50 - 1 10
4♠ S -1 - 50 0 11
Oct. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just love the cynicism.
Here is the South hand.

♠ K10984
♥ 2
♦ KQ93
♣ Q74

East
♠ J65
♥ 1086
♦ J86
♣ A986

West
♠ A7
♥ A9754
♦ A74
♣ 532

Given the bidding the most likely lead from east is a heart, and 3N makes.
Would some open 1S with that South hand?
4 finesses needed?
Oct. 30, 2017
Rajeev Jog edited this comment Oct. 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I will post the full hand shortly. It is cold for 3N except on an improbable fourth best lead from c A8xx
Oct. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apparently South thought so.
Oct. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1S is forcing. 2S would be weak (weak jump shifts in competition)
Oct. 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm waiting to see some comments from 4S proponents, but none are forthcoming :)
Oct. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1=5=3=4
Did you mean opener or partner?
Oct. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I bid 2D, partner corrected to 2H (after much scowling when dummy was tabled, plus a justified major harangue after opps had moved on - this was match points), making 2 for sure, I think 3 IIRC. 2C is unmakable. I have to dig up P's hand but it was something like:

S xx
H A J x x
D x
C A K Q x x x

I always get told the results don't justify the means.
Sept. 5, 2017
Rajeev Jog edited this comment Sept. 5, 2017
1 2
.

Bottom Home Top