Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Veljko Vujcic
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I didn't mention “blatant use of UI”.

To me, a pedagogical procedural penalty to NS looks appropriate.

That's because I think people should learn to put their s**t together especially when slam swing is at stake. S's action caused turmoil and while I don't think there was correlation between the way 4s was bid and optimal result, actions like this raise controversy and cause anger. So I think prevention is a healthier policy then borderline commitee decisions where two world champions have diametrically opposite points of view.

IMHO this case is closely connected with Bocchi's tank vs 7H.
Oct. 7, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As previously stated, 6c may well be wrong. It isn't clear whether S intended to bid 2,3 or 4 KC. While I can have some sympathy for the offended side, adjusting would be too harsh.

TD could have as well just said to N: “Please disregard the attempted change of call but if your action turns to be successful based on the actual lie of cards, your result will be adjusted according to what opponents think it's reasonable”.

To me, a pedagogical procedural penalty to NS looks appropriate.
Oct. 7, 2013
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
a negative trial bid (via 2nt, if available) works better here i.e “i don't need points in clubs”
Sept. 13, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also a fair chance for a spade lead.
Aug. 24, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd always vote for fair description + bridge sense instead of fuzzy overdescription with no semantic value that may please the lawyers.
Aug. 18, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I actually experienced this. Declarer (a decent player) was playing small slam where he had to guess trumps.

AK8x
Q10xx

This is a well known position and my partner (sitting E, naturally) falsecarded with 9 from J9xx, trying to give the declarer only losing option. To my astonishment, declarer asked me if trump 9 meant something. I said something like ‘are you kidding’; these guys were friends, I knew he did it out of ignorance, he went wrong anyway etc.

In general, I think it's time for police call and result adjustment if declarer guesses right.
Aug. 13, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>> But why would Bertheau play the ?2 instead of the ?10?

10 is no-no as S could have had 98x.
Aug. 11, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Appropriate question may have sounded like: “Do you upgrade good 13's”.
Aug. 11, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“And why not the second one?”

Because W finally did ask for a heart. Declarer could only profit from the fact that he was thinking (i.e. if it succeeds to confuse E). Maybe W was feeling unwell, maybe he had stage fright because of world class declarer (maybe tempo was unfair), maybe he oversaw a card and constructed a virtual problem or he is simply a weak player. He should take a lesson from this (from his partner) but conducting a legal action in such situation is insane and will lead to negative demographics because lesser players will feel harassed and humiliated. I would be very happy if NBA's and TD's try to make long-term strategy to discourage such calls.

“However, my main question is - what is the ethical East's return?”

Situation could be different:
e.g. W has only one safe card to discard but it would send a signal that means opposite of their carding agreements. Here legal action would be perfectly appropriate after a tank (if the opposite suit was returned). But E doesn't know if this is the case in advance so he should act according to his bridge reasons.

“Is such return partner-depending?”

It's not unethical to be aware of your partner's capabilities and try to make best result possible.

Aug. 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First case may have some legal merit (not even sure about that). In both cases I think calling TD doesn't show high ethical virtues, especially if playing against weaker player.

Neither example contains a real bridge problem where tempo would give away some UI thus declarer's greed shouldn't be fed. It rather shows a moment of weakness which offers partner a chance to make a mistake which he didn't (next time he will, and declarer will profit anyway in the long run).

I would contribute these cases to the endless book of examples on how to confuse and torture your partner. West should be offered a glass of cold water or even better a shot if available.
Aug. 5, 2013
4NT
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Direct 4NT is the most useful bid in this sequence and it shouldn't be used for a phantom meaning.

I'd really like to see a hand where you are able to say without breaking tempo: “Definitely I'd like to play 4NT here”. Even if you can construct it, it will come once in 5000 deals and then you'll lose 4imps by doubling.
June 20, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Really interesting sequence.

First of all, I think that similar sequence (replace 1M for 2) should show diamonds, constructive.

Assuming significant amount of natural opening bidders will actually have 5 4+, a mature player imho shouldn't bid 2 as natural even if it would be tempting to uncover occasional abberations (say opener has 4 5) or bluffs.

I'd vote for 10(9)+, either a 4card M and a stopper or 44 in M's. I'd reserve 3 for more major oriented hands (54+)
May 28, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Were CC's mandatory? If not it would be silly to punish N/S for having one.

Moreover, I find E's TD call shameless after asking for the meaning of an isolated bid where he holds AQ. This is really a good case for a TD to make some educational points regarding ethics.
May 17, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
assuming that 1nt is strictly BAL and that opener wouldn't hide his 4card :

1m-1-1nt - almost never (may bid on KQJ10x, depending on the mood)
1m-1-1nt - most hands with shortness in (or shortness in after 1 opening assuming we open 1 with 44m); (semi) solid bal hands with little on side, again depends on spots/vul/scoring/mood
May 6, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
my guess is that if problem was stated like “what should south rebid after 1d-1s” 3/4 of the players who now blame south would opt for a 2d rebid. 3d, no kidding? since when do you bid 95% fg with 13 hcp and singleton in pd's suit? what's more interesting here is the difference between 4d and 4n by south although i have sympathy for pass esp if not playing with a regular pd.
April 14, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
in 2nd pass, in 4th 3nt
Oct. 9, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
when did you start to apply ‘alzhaeimer’s principle'? did that come naturally or you had to struggle to achieve it?

cheers from serbia
June 9, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
First of all, I'm very grateful to all of you for showing such interest for the topic and for providing thorough comments. I cannot express my excitement for having here such an authority on bridge ethics like Bobby Wolff.

I understand that discussion has branched in two directions:
1) Whether the ruling can be justified given local regulations (however poor they may be)
2) What would be universally rightful approach

As for 1)
I required the regulation (if there is such) from the ruling committee, and will post it here asap. TD didn't mention any specific regulation (at least to us) but said the reason behind the rule was that CC stated 1c opening is 15+. Our CC states in ‘general approach’ STRONG CLUB RELAY STYLE, and in bid description 15+any. As for ‘repeated deviations’, I think we opened with less that 15 (compensated by distribution) once or twice in 5 years (there's no record of it).

2) is my main point of interest, and here I got more satisfaction from this poll that I could imagine. To put it even more abstract - I want to fight for the end of psychological bridge, pressure and low blows along with incompetent or biased ruling. Serbian bridge federation is dying out because of the dreadful atmosphere which rolls from the top (or so-called top) players downhill.
April 11, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
if you hold h void, it's penalty :)
March 22, 2012
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
i can't see the idea behind HJ. isn't it even harder to guess if garozzo plays low on the first round?
Feb. 28, 2012
.

Bottom Home Top