Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Roland Voigt
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think there is no prevailing theory - there are a lot of them.
June 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South has no business bidding 4 in this sequence. 3 already says that he likes his hand very much (partner can have a zero count).

If someone is supposed to bid 4, it is North. Of course, on another day both contracts go down and we criticize his overbidding.
June 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it was a model hand for 3 if the hearts were KQx.
June 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Come on. Lynn needed a reason to abstain, unfortunately all the spot cards were given.
June 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What do comments have to do with it? Three days passed between the posting of the problem and partner's hand. You described this as “immediately”. I suggest you make at least a tiny effort to be objective instead of flooding all the bidding polls on this site with your useless complaints.
June 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a huge difference between choosing to respond with a certain hand (that has no hcp) or making a response mandatory with any hand.
June 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I win the trick cheaply in hand and lead a low club.

I have an idea what to do after that (probably finesse the queen - it's hard to see how to get anywhere without the finesse), but in reality I get to see some of the opponents' cards before I play mine.

By the way, the auction is not convoluted, it it revolting.
June 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One might wonder what “proper conditions of play” actually means. And, if the word “primarily” says nothing about moving pairs, one might wonder if it means that no one is responsible in a Howell at all.
June 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They say when you are not sure whether to call the director, you usually should. More or less the same applies to recorder forms; when you are not sure whether something strange is going on, you record precisely to see if something strange is going on.

Apart from that, whatever you think about the 3NT bid, one should first speak to EW to find out what options East had (pairs who use wide-range 1NT openings or overcalls often have unusual methods). This might also shed some light on what West might have been thinking about.
June 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Given how much offense we have promised with our 4 opening, our defensive potential is quite good (only seven hearts, an ace on the side). Partner will not expect a spade void, but the possibility should certainly be on his radar. No reason to override his decision.
June 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
60-60 is out of the question. The director should avoid anything that goes above 100% unless 1) the board was unplayable due to something completely out of both pairs' control, or 2) there was a director's error.

North is responsible for entering the score, including the board number (very first step). That makes NS an offending side, plain and simple.

East is responsible for checking the score, and that includes the board number. Yes, checking the data is not a step just recommended for the fun of it. Basically, that makes EW an offending side, too.

There may have been special circumstances (or regulations), but a priori I don't see why EW should be entitled to 60%.
June 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess many things will disappear if we start handing out PPs for every single infraction.
June 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There may be the hope that doubling yields a bonanza, but the more we distort our bidding to cater for this case, the less it will gain in the long run.
June 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First, you don't have this much accuracy. No director would ever judge that one outcome has a likelihood of 51% and another one has a likelihood of 49%. There are only rough estimates like “half the time”, “3 out of 4”, etc. So in your example, there simply is no “clear probable outcome”.

Second, to my knowledge there is no such precedence. A probable outcome is essentially one which the director can imagine to occur a reasonable amount of time; it is not only the one with the highest probability. Thus (b) applies if the director is satisfied that only one result is plausible without the infraction; © amends the procedure in case there is more than one.
June 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Out of curiosity, why try to limit the “reasonable” actions in the problem description at all? If no one wants bid anything than Pass, Double or 2NT, the votes will show it anyway.
June 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve,
honestly, I don't know. Ideally, one could disclose along the lines of “We haven't discussed this bid my partner made, but I know he has heard of the … convention and wants to play it”, etc.

In reality, this has consequences in another direction: Explanations must contain all the relevant information, but they most also be sufficiently brief so that giving disclosure remains a practicable matter.

Clearly I cannot list all the books my partner has read every time I disclose an agreement. In the end, where to draw the line is still a matter of judgment, but it should include an effort to put oneself in the opponent's position.
June 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure I consider this a bright prospect…
June 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Light openings (not necessarily in third seat) are a particularly difficult item on the list because, apart from disclosure issues, RAs regulate to some extent which agreements are allowed at all.

I am under the impression that some partnership use the same excuses to not only give incomplete disclosure but also to circumvent the regulations about permissible methods. The “just bridge” argument then typically extends to “everybody does this”.
June 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, I had missed the part about the convention card. My general statement stands, of course. As for the question how to deal with the violation (apart from a potential score adjustment), I would have to be there and speak with the players myself.
June 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think “direct the directors” covers the entire problem. What I see here - again - is a case of the “just bridge” disease. I am not familiar with Blue Club methods, so what I am writing is based on more general observations, but I believe they apply here to a significant extent.

It has become a habit of many players to agree on something, disclose only that what is explicitly agreed, then deviate from the explicit agreement and pretend it is just bridge (i.e. normal for all intents and purposes). The situations where such “opportunities” present themselves range from light openers and overcalls via passes over forcing bids through improvised responses and psychs in general.

There is usually much safety behind this approach; after all, one can always refer to the system documentation and claim that one has “taken a shot”. Also, players seem to feel “enlightened” when they use such tactics - everyone should play the way they do, and everyone should consider normal what they consider normal.

Over the last couple of years, our focus concerning compliance with the laws has moved away from (systematic) disclosure violations and to prearranged methods of cheating. We have spent so much time establishing patterns and cracking codes regarding board placement, card orientation, etc., that we have become kind of deaf to other issues which are equally important to ensure fair competition.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think the intent behind “just bridge” violations can in any way be compared to the criminal energy necessary to come up with methods of communicating illegally, as we have them seen from the pairs found guilty of cheating. It is, as I said above, more of a habit.

Still, we should all reflect on how we exercise full disclosure. We should all ask ourselves if that what we tell the opponents truly covers our partnership methods and understandings, or if we have habits and tendencies we know about and which may be unfamiliar to other pairs. Just getting away with something is not the same as proper procedure.
June 20, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top