Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Stu Goodgold
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 74 75 76 77
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even though East is a passed hand?
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You asked quite a few questions. Here are my answers:

“would it not be incumbent on west to base any further bids that are in accordance and consistent with what he believed his initial 3♣ bid meant…”

Yes, West must not use his partner's explanation to wake him up.

“Would failure to do so, even in light of partner's alert, constitute taking advantage of the UI and MI, at least in the case of the 4♣ bid, especially if 3♥ is passable in their methods?”

Yes, it would be using UI to advantage.

“I have no clue what the 4♥ bid should mean if 3♣ is supposedly natural from west's point of view. Is that passable? Maybe very long ♥s that east decided was not an opening preempt in their methods?”

East is a passed hand. I would be hard pressed to find a pair that plays 4 by East as forcing.

From reading all the replies to the post, there are clearly some who think West had little choice in what he bid. Most however consider 5 to be a blatant use of UI.

The proper way to determine if West made use of UI is to poll his peers. First you would have to understand what their agreements are by a passed hand once the partner makes a preemptive bid. This might prove suspect since they probably don't have system notes to back up whatever they say verbally.

If they are convincing that 3 is support of clubs, then there is a case for West's actions, as some posters have noted.

But barring a convincing argument, it appears that 4 is use of UI, and 5 blatant use of UI.
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, a theoretical question regarding Law 68D: If a defender claims (or concedes) by showing his hand but the claim is not accepted and all 4 players agree to play it out, does the claimer's partner get to use the knowledge of what claimer holds? After all “Laws 16 and 50 do not apply” so there is no UI.

Additionally, if there is a penalty card on the table proir to a claim, the claim is rejected, and playing it out is agreed, is that penalty card no longer a penalty card? Again, Law 50 does not apply.
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At our SF NABC Host meeting yesterday, the ACBL reps said the Marriott is sold out but the Westin St. Francis is still available. That won't help David's friend, unless someone who reserved at the Marriott is willing to switch over to the St. Francis. It is about a 10 min walk away (0.4 miles).

The Marriott Marquis at $165/nt is a real bargain for downtown SF. I doubt many are getting other hotels for less in that area. In Honolulu that wasn't the case.
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I play minorwood or kickback, I have a list of what applies and when. With one partnership we even considered that your 4NT is to play when playing matchpts and Q asking playing IMPs.

Another detail is what to respond to 4m when holding a useful void. For that I prefer stacked responses - steps 5 thru 8 are 1430 with a useful void. When having 0 keycards, showing the useful void is optional.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
"Bridge where they are never applied, and instead the players agree on a way to restore equity."

Having encountered this when learning to play bridge in college, I can only say not following suit ruins the game. We had a player who revoked regularly; the other players agreed on a way to restore equity … and sanity - get rid of the revoker.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Once I claim, my policy is to never revert to playing out the hand. I would explain my claim with my hand exposed stating each card to play, trick by trick if necessary, and call the TD if the opps do not accept the claim. But I would never pick up my hand and resume play.

Why? Because the new law phrasing leaves open just what you stated. Plus the situation from the original case that prompted the new phrase: the European Championship where declarer claimed on a double squeeze and then botched up his own line upon resuming play.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, you beat me to the same question. I cannot find any official Alert reference that would support item 5.
Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“ Perhaps when I announce the (semi) forcing 1 NT I should add, “may have 4 spades.”

If you do thenb you are making up your own announcement rules.
Announcements are limited to just a few phrases, such as ”15-17“, ”forcing“, ”may be short“, ”transfer“. ”May have 4 spades…" is not one of them.
Oct. 14
Stu Goodgold edited this comment Oct. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why not do it the other way around and follow the ACBL alert procedure? Pre-alert your system and alert what is alertable.

If your side declares then you can remind them about the bids that were not alerted but are different.

Over-alerting can be just as bad as under-alerting. If you alert everything, the whole concept is defeated. You might as well glue an alert card to the table.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No Alert on all except 6. 1x-1y;1N showing a strong NT is alertable; it is not announced. See the ACBL Alert Chart and Alert Procedure doc.

7 is covered by the Alert Procedure:

“Example: 1♥-P-1♠

If 1♠ promises a five-card suit (when playing an opening 2♦ bid as five hearts and four spades), no Alert is required.”

High on my list of my pet peeves are players who volunteer an explanation instead of, or immediate after, an Alert. Another is when players alert whatever they think might be not quite standard. This was carried to extreme by a Russian pair who played 1 as 15-17 any shape. In an uncontested auction that went 1-2;P they would alert the pass since it showed opener had 12-14 HCP.
Oct. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, the TD did invoke the “experienced player rule” and it was not worth arguing the point. You were also there and surely realize that weak JS are quite common in our area. Just the same, I did not know the opps and thought they might be C players (it was a stratified event) and play strong JS. In any case, if it were a weak JS, I wouldn't want to wake up the opener by asking.
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I tried that last week at a sectional. The opps bid 1-(P)-2. There was no alert, so I passed in 4th seat. Then opener passed. I called the TD, saying (away from the table) I would have bid 3 had I known. The TD ruled the bidding stands since I should have known it could be a weak jump shift, which is a common convention here, and should have asked about the 2 bid.
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Depends on which partner I am playing with.
Oct. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would think you have 3 as a GF so don't need another bid also GF. But 3 would ask for more definition from partner, such as 3 hearts or decent stoppers in diamonds (assuming 2 is natural). So 3 is still needed as GF to show a 6 heart hand.
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I think the specific complaint with the ACBL here is that instead of thinking about reducing each district's quota of regionals from 4 to 3 as attendance fell, they removed the cap and allowed the number of regionals to increase.”

The number of new regionals has not increased more than 1 or 2 in the last 10 years. Every district is allocated 4 regionals. A number of districts are given more for outlying locations (Alaska, Hawaii, Mexico), a couple for having more than 9000 members (D9 and D7), and a few for having a very large regionals of over 3000 tables (such as Gatlinburg, Las Vegas, Penticton).

The problem is that attendance at most regionals has been on the decline in recent years due to demographics.

Should the number of regionals be reduced as a result is a separate question that the ACBL board should address, but probably won't in the near future.
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“They had ten tables in the eight is enough…”

So what are you complaining about, you drew 2 over what was good enough!
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whadda you know! This director got it right. You were lucky that it wasn't Tuesday.
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yet another action the director should not take. Just because most or even all results for this board at other tables have 4 making 6 is no reason to rule that way at this table. Assigning an artificial score should be reserved for hands that cannot be played or for which something outside of the players' control happened (eg. a player split coffee and caused another player to jump up and expose his hand, or someone overheard a discussion at another table that had just played the hand).
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“ the result was changed to average/average.”

Regardless of any other argument, the director should never have awarded average/average or any other arrtificial adjusted score.
Sept. 26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 74 75 76 77
.

Bottom Home Top