Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Stu Goodgold
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North could have supported clubs at his 2nd bid, or should have cued 3S over 3C. 3D does not describe his controls at all. And with 2 aces and the K of clubs, why is he passing with 5C. Maybe the opps can cash 2 hearts, but what in the world is partner bidding 2C GF on?
I am with the others saying 5C is a bad choice for South; there are other forcing bids which describe his hand better.
June 16, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bob, you make a good point that a BIT is relative. Originally I viewed Neil's “5 seconds” as a normal tempo for an auction at this level, even among experts.

I am now inclined to agree with you after Neil said his partner bid 5D relatively fast and Dbled 5S relatively slowly. Stating partner's tempo is irregular doesn't cut it for me. Neil must have sensed his partner's quickness and slowness as meaning confidence in one and lack of confidence in the other, so there is definitely UI to him.

June 16, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Normand, I always took Goldwater's rule to heart until a couple of years ago. On the old rec.games.bridge a poster asked about an opening lead out of turn, noting that Bob Hammon was supposed to be on lead. Many of the replies said let the client lead and quoted Goldwater's maxim, until the original poster later added that Hammon's partner was Zia.
June 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Like everyone else here, I greatly enjoyed SB and the humorous stories of his TD experiences. Not only were they funny, they added a greatly needed element of humanity to the TD profession by allowing players to see the extreme situations TDs have to handle. It is sad that a humorless reader of Bridge Winners complained about these articles; it does the rest of us a great disservice by stopping SB's stories.

Gary, as an insider you obviously know who SB actually is, so his identity is probably known to others as well. Even so, you made a nice effort to continue the stories with the Spider Harris tale. In my book that does not makes you a gad buy! (can't resist a Spoonerism myself)

After all, the line attributed to TD Solly(?) when the priests at table 7 were late is an all-time classic: “Our fathers who art at seven, hurried be thy game.” Today's policy of making no remark which might have the slightest hint of offense would probably have censured him for that one. It would have been a tremendous loss to bridge lore.



June 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As you note, the optimal game theoretic strategy comes down to a 50-50 guess. In a live game, even at the USBF level, one might ask why the opening lead was the SA. In a ‘non-descript’ auction, it is often better to make a passive lead.

Then there are miniscule hitches and personalities that can be taken into account. Might you consider Zia to be the Super Saboteur type? Or he is more likely a step beyond that?
June 7, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK, based on your correction, I now blame South 100% for not returning a high club.
June 7, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I abstain but if trick 2 is correct, it is South 100% for playing the C8 out of turn.
June 7, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A bid is either alertable or not; there is nothing in the alert rules that say you alert based on what skill level you think your opponents are at. The TD advised you to alert 2N in the future, so even he thinks it is alertable. Apparently he ruled no damage based on queries of other players and that the expert opponents should have protected themselves.

Did the TD ask West if she wanted to change her pass? Based on Law 21B1 West can change her pass but not East.
June 5, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5N should be “pick a slam”, obviously between 6S and 6NT.
Since this is matchpts (you said a club game), it may be important to get to 6N. GSF makes little sense - why would partner make a try for 7 when he was willing to sign off at 3N? Plus you only made an invite with 5S.
June 4, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apparently they expected you to be at the same level as your pickup partner, whom they must have known. E/W comments are disgraceful, but you indicate their rudeness was not an isolated incident.
You do us a disservice by keeping the name of this club anonymous. We would certainly all like to avoid it.
June 4, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Alvin, the results of the poll show that all 44 voters agree that the withdrawn DBL by South is AI to North (item A). Since the voters include some experts on the Laws, I would take that to be the proper ruling, ie. North could correct 3C to 3D based on the withdrawn Dbl.

Of course, there is also AI that since East's 2D actually shows the majors, it is likely the minors are breaking unfavorably. And because West bid 3H over 3C, N/S would have to go to the 4 level to play in a minor.
June 3, 2013
Stu Goodgold edited this comment June 3, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Who knows? East is a B player and maybe was foolishly thinking of bidding 4H. East did ask at her turn to make a call, at least. No one claimed this auction was sensible! It was just a technical law query.
May 29, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David, North's Dbl of 2H was penalty. South's original dbl of 2D was for penalty, but he did not have a penalty double in my opinion, just Jxxxx in diamonds with 2=1=5=5 shape and 3 HCP. His pull to 3C was based on his lack of defensive values.

And yes, East was the one who asked about the meaning of Dbl over a theoretical 2D natural, even though it was West who was declarer. E/W are B players.

West could have asked what South's 3C was but did not; if she did the answer would have been no agreement. Bridge logic does indicate that he has a weakish hand that could not justify sitting for 2HX.
May 29, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You quote the famous line: “Cowards die many times before their deaths…” but one should also note that immediately before and after that line, Caesar says “Caesar shall go forth.” It is a lot easier to be brave sitting in last chair.

But it is even doubtful Caesar played the game. There is no evidence a bridge existed across the Rubicon when he crossed it.
May 28, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Steve Bloom, we need to know more about your methods. I just would not have gone to the depth of his analysis, especially at the table.

One thing you did mention was matchpts. So it might be right to keep declarer to 10 tricks (or maybe even 11). From the bidding I would put partner on about a 7 count. Otherwise why is opener jumping to 3H? So pard is likely to hold CAQxxxx and not much more.

It is likely declarer is AK,AKQJxx,Kx,xx, or maybe
AK,AKQJxx,xx,Qx. Either way it seems right to play low on trick 1. (on hand 2 if you split, declarer can set up the 4th spade to pitch a club; on hand 1 he gets a pitch on the diamonds).

May 26, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even with the statement that 5H was ruled as misuse of UI, it is hard to make a decision. It would help to know the vul., form of scoring, skill level of the players, and of course, all 4 hands.

The first 3 items would help in judging whether 6D was a wild gamble or not. If it was and failed, then a split score is reasonable. If it wasn't and failed, then the NOS should get the better of 6D down or 4SX assuming “the most favorable result that was likely”, and the OS gets the worse of 6D down or 4SX assuming “the most unfavorable result that was at all probable”. These may or may not be the same result.
May 26, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Firstly you didn't say if this was under the ACBL. I'll assume it is. The ACBL is not the only regional authority in the world; other RAs have their own rules about alerting.

No amount of polling will give you the right answer. You alert what the ACBL says is alertable and you do not alert other calls. The only question is what the ACBL says is alertable, not what a player thinks it should be.

The ACBL Alert Procedure defines 1S showing 4+ spades as a natural bid. Natural bids are not alerted. It give a specific example where 1H-(P)-1S showing 5+ spades is not alertable.

The Alert Procedure and Alert Chart both note that most doubles are not alertable unless they have “highly unusual meanings”. You double is still a negative dbl even though it emphasizes the minors. Even those who don't play your system would still usually double with KTx,x,KQxxx,Axxx so responder's negative dbl does not always promise 4 spades.

Now if you would regularly make a neg dbl with x,xx,ATxxx,KQxxx then I would call that highly unusal and an alert would be in order.

Your double is not highly unusual and should not be alerted.
May 26, 2013
Stu Goodgold edited this comment May 28, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for catching the error. It is fixed in my update.
May 25, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Funny indeed!

On the serious side, North/South can play any legal agreement they want, however uncommon or unsound it might be. Had East's unsolicited comment that it was a limit raise been wrong, you could have adjusted the score based on Law 73D2: “A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of a remark or gesture…..”
May 25, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, North had Drury marked on his convention card. Even if that was not sufficient to show that was their agreement, North eventually woke up and verbally admitted they agreed to play Drury. The evidence is overwhelming; I find it impossible to believe this was not really their agreement.

Yes, we all forget our agreements on occasion, but when we do, we pay the price of giving MI or UI. Sometimes the price is zero, sometimes it is huge. Here it is 1 trick.
May 20, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top