Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Victor Chubukov
1 2 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Aside from 2X, another benefit to doubling instead of bidding 3 is that you might get to play in 2. (If responder had bid 2 over the double and opener bids 3, I would think that should show significant extras.)
March 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I no longer rememember if I held this hand or if this was even a real hand, but I'm sure that my intention after 2 was to show a balanced 22-24.
Feb. 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I really like this idea and wanted to do something similar, but I worry that we'd have to not let people change votes, or the results would be too skewed.
July 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a neat idea. I gave up on the unbalanced diamond because I never thought the transfer rebids that most people played were particularly useful or worth the cost. The gazilli-like method seems to be a clear improvement.
July 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Simply because if you have length in both diamonds and spades defending becomes much more attractive. And if your shortness can be in either major, partner will never know to pass when you have spade length here.
July 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about a much simpler example. Partner leads slowly against 1n-3n and I win the ace. Partner's spot is consistent with either KJxxx or Jxxxx. Declarer clearly has a bunch of tricks. I have to guess whether to return partner's suit or shift to my suit, which will run with some help. Which action will be allowed if successful?

Again, I think that it is a perfectly self-consistent interpretation to say that neither will be allowed, and that once partner led slowly, the defense was doomed. I'd even say that it's the interpretation I prefer. But it would directly contradict the notion that there is always at least one legal action available to the player.
July 7, 2016
Victor Chubukov edited this comment July 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David B:
If you assume that a marginal hand will make 3n a good contract when responder is a maximum then your definition is not much different from “if successful”. It is only the randomness of 3n contracts that creates the impression that they are far apart. In a slam auction where the hands are better defined, it's possible that guessing right in the auction may be all there is to the hand.

I think the defensive examples may be even clearer – I'll reply separately to the thread above.
July 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
comment in wrong place
July 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To make it more explicit, take David's example of the 1N-2N auction. If opener bids with a minimum, or passes with a maximum, we roll it back, saying that it is indistinguishable from opener bidding based on UI. Fine, I can agree with this. But what if opener has exactly an average hand, where 50% of their peers pass, and 50% bid? Reading the penultimate paragraph literally, it seems that either action will be rolled back if successful.
July 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know what the law should be, but I don't understand how it's possible to agree with the interpretation David Burn is proposing here and yet dismiss Mark Raphaelson's “damned if you do, damned if you don't” thread as misunderstanding the laws.

If it is possible based on one hand to rule as if illegal information has been used, then it is trivial to construct a situation where there is no reasonable and legal action available to the hesitator's partner. This is basically what Nigel Kearney is saying above.

I have a friend who claims that bridge is a flawed game precisely because of this issue – in some situations you are basically not allowed to think. I wish I had a solution.
July 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Congratulations Mitch!
July 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With one partner, I do play 1-2 natural and 1-2 as drury. But over 1, I think the drury step is too important to give up, so I go back to 2 drury and 2N clubs.

To me, the extra step is the whole benefit of drury – it allows you to drury on very light hands and stop in 2M.
March 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know I hate playing in them. Perhaps I'd feel differently if there was an olympic (or equivalent) bronze medal on the line.
Feb. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I understand that Jan's questions related to how to solve these problems in the short term, but it seems clear to me that many of the issues (e.g. putting in names and scores) would be completely avoided if the vugraph/bbo software was actually integrated with the software that runs the movement (acblscore or its successor). Does anyone have a vision of this happening? It just seems crazy that in 2015 the best solution involves spectators relaying scores. That said, I thought Jan and her team did a great job with the resources available.
Dec. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We'll add a special Humper beer rule: if you've done less work on BW than your partner, you owe partner a beer.
Nov. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My notes say “double is for takeout if we don't know what suit we're playing in”, followed by a couple of pages of specific examples/exceptions.

But there is still room for judgment/interpretation: a lot of them say “auctions like X are penalty” and there is a non-zero chance of different extrapolations.

If this is an exercise to show just how difficult it is to come with rules that cover every single auction, I think you will succeed.
Oct. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I edited it (had it as both vulnerable originally), apologies to those who already voted.
Oct. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Re: “If LHO's double was takeout I could just raise to 4C for free on nothing”.

I've heard this argument before, but it's really not free. Lots of bad things could happen: righty could reopen with a second double, or maybe the opponents weren't even planning to defend 3c, but are happy to defend 4c (and it's above the par spot). And sometimes they get to defend because lefty gets to make a responsive double of 4c and righty leaves it in with a flattish hand.

So I'm not too worried about my opponents trying to take advantage of this.
Sept. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
More importantly, “low from an honor” is information also available to declarer…
Sept. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Look into the BBO bridge movies – I think it's more or less exactly what you want.
Sept. 11, 2015
1 2 3
.

Bottom Home Top