Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wayne Burrows
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike I think there is a difference between claiming four diamond tricks and saying my diamonds are high. The former does not suggest how they are going to be played but the latter suggests from the top down.

Similarly, drawing trumps normally means cashing winning trumps to extract the opponents' smaller trumps and so suggests an order.
Dec. 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I understand the odds.

I do not know so much of the conventional wisdom. It seems local rather than global. I am interested in the wording in the law and how it should be applied.

“The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an
opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play.”

I do not have any problem under that wording giving declarer the worst of it whenever there is a normal losing line. So I would be happy to allow declarer to win if there was Jxx or Jx or J onside but possibly allow declarer to lose a trick with Jxx, Jx or J offside. At least I would listen to the arguments.
Dec. 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I use non-serious here and have had discussions about how we do not have non-serious on the analogous auction 1NT 2 2 3 … and similarly on the slam try auctions 1NT 2 2 3 where there is much less room than 1NT 2 2 3.
Dec. 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Curious. It seems to me that using good technique on the third round of diamonds at the moment when east follows declarer has a choice to play east or west for the J and the laws expressly disallow the line that would be playing west rather than east for that card. So I would give one trick to the defenders when diamonds were 3=3 with the jack offside.
Dec. 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If diamonds are 3=3 with the J offside, do you allow the claim?

There is a losing line of a third round finesse.
Dec. 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How the hand was showed so that only three diamonds were seen becomes irrelevant when the statement “ok, you only have 3 diamonds” is made.

Now it is clear to declarer that only three diamonds were seen whether or not that was intentional. Declarer cannot accept the acquiescence in the claim on the basis that there are only three diamonds and therefore only three diamond tricks being claimed when declarer knows that he was claiming four diamond tricks.
Dec. 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I asked declarer ”how are you getting rid of your last diamond“.”

This is an objection raised before the end of the round.

“Declarer showed me his hand in a way that I could only see the AKT of diamonds. I said ”ok, you only have 3 diamonds“ and accepted the claim at the table.”"

This does not negate that an objection was raised before the end of the round.

The objection has not been resolved satisfactorily by a failure by declarer to acknowledge that he had four diamonds or equivalently did not have three diamonds which was the only basis on which the objection was withdrawn.
Dec. 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I disagree see above and …

“Agreement is established when a side assents to an opponent’s claim or concession, and raises no objection to it before making a call on a subsequent board or before the round ends, whichever occurs first. The board is scored as though the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in play.”

There was an objection before the end of the round. The agreement, if you can call it that, was based on a false assumption and representation that declarer had only three diamonds. There was no agreement about at the actual hand in which declarer held four diamonds.
Dec. 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do not think agreement has been established when declarer misrepresented his hand as having only three diamonds. The agreement is at best conditional and the fact that he has four diamonds negates any agreement based on the assumption that he has only three diamonds.
Dec. 30, 2019
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I need to know more about their methods to determine the worst bid. That includes:

1. The expectation for a 1 opening - although despite other comments I suspect most partnerships would agree to open this hand.

2. The requirements for 2 over 2.

3. The requirements for 2.

4. The requirements for 3.

There many also be other questions dependent on the answers to those questions about the meanings of 3NT and higher.
Dec. 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The question should not be what the call suggests but what it suggests over some other action.

In particular if 5 cannot be to play for this partnership then the slow action cannot suggest something over pass as pass is not a possible logical alternative. On the other hand if 5 is a possible final contract then the slow 5 may suggest something over pass.

I do not think we can answer the question what is suggested by the slow 5 in a vacuum not knowing the partnership methods.

Personally i would not willingly play a method where I can cue bid for clubs and then partner can attempt to play in some other denomination below slam after Blackwood. Therefore 5 would be a normal Blackwood continuation and I would just answer the question partner has chosen to ask.
Dec. 25, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South's pass of 2 was pretty good too.
Dec. 24, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We have the rule that any bid in a suit, actually a denomination as it includes no trumps, bid by the opponents or shown by the opponents is a cue-bid. That makes for some absurd situations.

1 strong (2) does not need an alert whatever it's meaning.

1NT (2NT) similarly does not need an alert.
Dec. 23, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The first hand is opposite Q A5 AKJT QJT862.

The second is opposite - KT32 AJ43 QJ873
Dec. 23, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“A PP is for somebody who does something which he knows is wrong.”

Disagree. There is nothing in the laws for that.

Playing any other sport or game it is normal to penalise people when they do not know the rules. We have a very strange attitude towards penalties in bridge that I have never been able to understand.

Sometimes it is by penalising that people learn the rules.

I have played against a few people who for 25-30 years have acted regularly on their partner's UI. They have never been penalise but have been told many times when their score is adjusted. They often say things like “not again” when I mention the problem or call the director. Not penalising creates an environment in which they think they can keep getting away with blatant disregard for the laws.
Dec. 22, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“We can assume that with the alert the question would have been asked immediately, and had no UI, and that a diamond would have been led.”

I am unconvinced that just because there is an alert you have a free pass to ask a question without risking conveying unauthorised information. The laws include “questions” without qualification in the sources of unauthorised informaiton.

"Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized.
This includes remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected alerts or failures to alert, unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or mannerism"
Dec. 21, 2019
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I bid 4 with more spades than what I double 3 with.
Dec. 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North needs to be educated about the appropriate times to ask questions. I can't think of a reason to ask this question except to be lead directional. And that is not a good reason.
Dec. 21, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How, in practice, are you going to make someone alert a reverse that does not show extra values when they do not even understand what a reverse is?
Dec. 21, 2019
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some might play 4 as natural.
Dec. 21, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top