Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Steve Chen
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 164 165 166 167
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice structure. Thank you.
Jan. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So you show clubs by bidding 4?
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If playing transfer over 3, what do you bid if you want to play 3NT? (assuming dbl is still negative)
Jan. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A related question is the meaning of 1 (3) 4NT in your system. Also, how do you keycard in a minor suit in general.
Jan. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sold-out dates are July 19 - 21, by that time GNT has already finished.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, if you have same pause on every trick, you will not be accused of deliberate deception. You may get slow play penalty however, but that is a separate issue.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not necessarily. For common situations which I expect an alert (e.g. new minor forcing), I sometimes just take a look at their convention card regardless of whether it affects my bid or not, just to confirm it is what I expected.

The main point is, we want to minimize the opportunity to give UI, but we also want the game to proceed smoothly. There is a balance to be made. Ultimately having UI is not a high crime. It may limit the action that partner can take, which may put our side to disadvantage. But it is not wrong doing.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In theory, consistently asking about every alert is best, for the purpose of not giving any UI to partner. In practice, this will probably cause unnecessary delay to the game.

I think it is more practical to ask only if the meaning of alerted bid would affect your action. For some common conventions (e.g. new minor forcing, inverted minors) I can also just look at opponent's convention card. You can always ask for full explanation after the bidding is over.

I can see that this may create UI situation in some circumstances, partner just needs to act ethically. It is not infraction of the law to have UI, it is the action on it that is governed by the law. To further minimize it, we would need to use screens (which I think is preferable to “partner always leave the table”).
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sensible choices include:
1) Distributional (but not really strong) hand with at least 5-6 in H-D
2) Huge hand with diamond suit, too big to merely rebid 3
3) Some sort of good spade raise.

I think mainstream is spade raise with shortness in hearts, but even then there are different ways to play it (whether it creates game-force, or split range, etc.). So you definitely want to discuss this with partner.

I don't think that “super-strong bid showing a diamond-heart two suited hand” makes much sense, unless you define the shape and strength more precisely.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's not director's job to educate, but it is his job to enforce the law, right? To me, it is somewhat analogous to policeman seeing speeding cars. The policeman can give a speeding ticket, or in some cases may choose to just give a warning. During that process, the policeman may explain the reason (for example what is the speed limit, what is the actual speed of the car), which can be educational. But to do nothing on it, or worse, to say speeding is not a problem since no one got injured, that just doesn't seem right.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bidding 3 then 4 over 3NT shows a much stronger hand – a hand with slam interest and heart control (advanced cue).

I cannot fathom why would anyone not bid 3 here – it is natural, it is forcing, it shows a good diamond suit (which is the main feature of this hand), and it still leaves all avenues open, including 3NT and 5. Another way to think about this: let's say that you don't play XYZ, how would you bid this hand? Probably over 1 1 1, responder would start with 2 as 4sf, then after opener bids 3 what would you bid? Won't you bid a natural 3 to clarify the nature of your hand? Or would you rather do a torturing 3 to keep partner in darkness? The only reason I can think of, for not bidding 3, is not wanting to risk 3 being passed. I really do.

The funny thing is that, had the responder bid 3 as he should, and if it indeed got passed, they would actually have got a better score…
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think you got it right. Opener has a weak-2 in diamonds so opened 2D. Responder has a 20-21 balanced hand, thought partner opened Flannery, so used 2NT as an artificial forcing bid to gain more information. The weak-2D opener, upon learning that partner took his opening as Flannery, decided to pass the forcing 2NT to minimize the damage. This is simply taking advantage of the UI, nothing to do with caliber. These players need to understand that taking advantage of UI is unethical behavior. If they don't change this behavior, I don't mind not having them playing this game. And no, I don't think majority of bridge players are unethical, so I won't worry about playing alone any time soon.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The opener should not have “heard” the alert. He should bid as if 2D is a weak-two (and partner takes it as such), while his partner should bid as if opener opened a Flannery. So after 2NT, opener should respond according to what they play after weak-two bid (Ogust, Feature, or whatever), while responder would take the bid as whatever it means after a Flannery 2D - 2NT. The bidding should progress that way. The final contract should depend on their system over weak-two and Flannery. If there are different choices during the bidding, I would choose the one unfavorable to the offending side. On top of that, PP should apply. But again, just like in all cases I've seen so far, even though director agreed there *should* be PP, it is never given out.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Although I don't know the official ACBL policy, I imagine part of the director's job description is to apply the law of duplicate bridge, NOT inaction to violation of law.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think it matters at all.

West knew East didn't alert the 2 bid. Maybe East forgot what 2 was, or maybe East just forgot to alert. I don't think West knew for sure either. But the 3 bid suggests that West was covering the case that East forgot the meaning of 2.

Had this been played behind the screen, would any one at West bid 3?
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robert: no one suggested score adjustment.

The central issue is: even though this time trying to take advantage of UI didn't work out for the offending side, it is not the right thing to do. That part is irrelevant to the results. Do you think the director should do something about it (e.g. educate the players), or do nothing and give players green light to do it again next time?
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They should. But not all directors are of same caliber or share same philosophy when it comes to situation like this. Most of time directors are more concerned about the results (e.g. score adjustment), which coincides with what most players are generally concerned about.

In my limited experience, “procedural penalty” only exists on paper. I never saw it handed even once, although I heard that it did happen sometime somewhere. After all, it may create tension between directors and players (or among players). Arguably this is part of director's job, but there is little motivation for the directors to want to do that. I am not saying this is right or wrong, just the existing system doesn't encourage giving out PP even when they should.

I do agree that the director should at least attempt to educate the player. Did you talk to other directors about this? There must be something you can do (I hope!) about the inaction, just as there should be a way to appeal director's ruling.
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just because NOS wasn't injured, does it mean it's ok to take advantage of the UI?
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here is a photo of the winning team: https://i.imgur.com/iAZi7oR.jpg
From left to right: Andrew Chen, Brian Zhang, Charlie Chen, and Olivia Schireson.
Congratulations!
Jan. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hard to believe that we let logistics such as “extra step of calculation” or “half-dollar change” stand in the way. These strike me as excuses rather than real hurdles.
April 29, 2019
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 164 165 166 167
.

Bottom Home Top