Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Stu Goodgold
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is demostrably suggested that you not make any bid that is not natural, such as a cue bid or any conventional follow-up to whatever agreement you know partner forgot.
March 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your first obligation is to explain your partnership agreements to the best of your knowledge. If that means giving your partner UI, sobeit. It is up to your partner to avoid using any such UI that you might provide.

Per your text, you know you have an agreement about 3, but you also know you cannot recall what that agreement is. That is what you should tell the opponents; it is the truth afterall. You might suggest they call the TD and do as Rod suggests. Otherwise, if the opps are injured because you cannot explain your real agreement, there might be an adjustment on the board due to MI.

A secondary effect is that the UI given to your partner might result in an adjustment, but if partner is careful to avoid calls that could be suggested by your UI, that won't happen.
March 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Looks like all passed. Call the TD and tell him the score on the BridgeMate was scored on the wrong side.
March 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed. Apparently, East made neither the alert nor the correction. But that is consistent with East realizing his error immediately.
March 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“ The failure to alert a nonalertable bid isn't MI unless there is an online regulation that requires alerting all your own mistakes.”

I see it differently.

East is required to alert his DBL if he thinks his partnership agreement is that it is single-suited (DONT). He clearly thought that at the time he made his call.

The question is when did he realize he made an incorrect call?

If it was immediately after making the DBL, then there is no reason he should alert. No more that if he had accidentally hit a wrong key. This possibility is entirely feasible because East admitted he didn't see South's 1 bid. It wouldn't have taken long to make another glance at the online bidding table to realize the oversight.

But if he realized the mistake some time later, such as when his partner bid 2, then he should have self-alerted at the time of the DBL, since at that point he thought the partnership agreement was single-suit.
March 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The main problem is that there is no codification of alert rules when playing online. In face to face without screens, the comments are clear - no MI and no UI.

With screens we should expect East to alert his screenmate. One could argue that online is the equivalent of playing with screens where both opponents are you ‘screenmates’. Let's assume that applies here.

Now the question arises as to when East realized that South had opened the bidding with 1 rather than North opening with 1N. if it was immediately after he Dbl'ed then he just misbid and discovered it quickly.

If it was well after his Dbl, then he should have alerted N/S that it was showing a single suit. In this case N/S have MI. But were they harmed? West has no UI, so his 2 bid is fine. East does indeed have a 1 suited hand and elected to bid 3 over the 2. If he woke up to the actual bidding before or after makes little difference. West, still with no UI, bid 4

In either case, I would rule the result stands.
March 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The OPs profile states he lives and plays in Germany. My previous comments were based on ACBGL regulations. Perhaps someone familiar with the alerting rules in Germany could provide their expertise.
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
a) Why is 3 not strong enough for this hand?
b) Do N/S have an agreement that 1-2 is artificial?

Regardless of the answer to a), if the answer to b) is No, then no alert. A minor is considered natural if it is 3+ cards, which North has.
March 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With xyz or xy1n a jump to the 3 level by an unpassed hand is a natural slam try. Obviously this is a non-starter for a passed hand. I prefer to play that a rebid by a passed hand is:
a) 2C = relay to 2D, either to play or the only way to invite game, except for b).
b) 2D = natural and invitational. Keeps you from having to go to the 3 level, in case 2N might be a decent contract.
c) all other bids are non-forcing.

So a jump to the 3 level is a very long suit to play. Ostensibly you would use this keep the opps out of the auction. OTOH, they already have had chances to get into it, so it would imply that responder expects they might jump balance after a 2 level bid.
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Li-Chung wrote: “I'm fairly sure that lower overall awards are computed according to page 10 of http://web2.acbl.org/codification/MPBOOK.pdf” .

Sorry, I wrote that off the top of my head and forgot about that complexity.
March 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Li-Chung,

I was replying to your orginal comment, but got interrupted and then AJ chimed in with his first hand knowledge. Here what I was writing:

I think this motion was made just to simplify the current method of calculating MPs for a 4-session non-KO event. It currently pays a 40% bump over a 2 session event, but the method of calculating the number of tables that count for the event is not so simple; it depends on what event(s) are on opposite the 4 session event.

As for lower place finishes, the general formula applies, 2nd is 70% of 1st, 3rd is 70% of 2nd, etc. The biggest difference in MP awards is that any event with a qualifier session cannot be stratified. So there is just an A flight - no X, B, or C.

There has always been two sides of the argument as to whether a 4-session event is better to win that two 2 session events. Statistically speaking, it is harder to win 2 single session events than one 2 session event. The same applies to two 2 session events vs one 4 session event. However, winning a longer event is certain a better indicator of who is the best player.
March 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are not 180 people at a BoG meeting. At the last BoG meeting in Honolulu, Richard Popper, the BoG chair noted that the meeting expenses are about $40 per person (there are usually around 100 in attendance). The BoG then voted to do away with the continental breakfast and save the ACBL $4K.
March 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Goodwill receptions are expensive. The hotel is providing the hors d'oeuvres and drinks, and hotel charges are notoriously expensive. OVer the last few years the food has been reduced, but I would guess it's still many thousands for each reception.
March 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is one of the motions, but it hasn't been voted on as yet.
March 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Russ, I just want to thank you for taking the time to ‘be in the well’ today. You are clearly very busy juggling bridge and personal life, so taking on this task makes you most energetic.
And brave too! BoD members are too often bombarded with tough and generally negative questions on BW. You handled them all forthright and with clarity.
Feb. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assuming you did indeed agree to play 2/1 as stated, I cannot understand how E/W were damaged by anything but a misbid, which last time I looked is not an irregularity.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When E/W produced their system notes, did either say the notes were incorrect, out-of-date, or generally ignored? If not, then they imply that their notes are accurate. On that basis, you have MI.

If they had no system notes, then as others have pointed out, the assumption is MI unless the TD can be convinced otherwise. Here, West's bid of 3 with the hand he held would indicate the bid was preemptive, not invitational. Without any further proof support East's response of invitational, he gave you MI.

If they actually had no agreement (and no system notes), East stating 3 is invitational is again MI.
Jan. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations! (The number of congratulations in this post is significant….statistically!)
Jan. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Timo, you are certainly correct that the majority of BW posters think only along the lines of experts and have little regard to what C players expect. I doubt many of them play pro with clients who are just casual bridge players. But as I said before, only you know the capabilities of your client. Even run of the mill players like me are only in a position to judge a player's level by your description of her (having 1000 MPs), and to me that is someone who should know basic matchpoint strategies, which essentially make redoubles useless for playing a contract. Perhaps your client doesn't know that despite playing long enough to rack up 1000 MPs. That's for you to decide, not us.

Besides, my comment was meant as a witticism in response to David Corn's reply.
Jan. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“SOS redoubles and stolen bid doubles belong in the same garbage bin.”

I always heard that, at least about stolen bid doubles. However, did you read Kit's column this week? Or did you throw it in the garbage bin?
Jan. 15
.

Bottom Home Top