Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wayne Burrows
1 2 3 4 ... 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ... 52 53 54 55
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is irrelevant what anyone plays double of 7NT as except for the pair at the table.
Dec. 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“7NT down 1 to the Grand Slam bidders.”

7NT is never going down 1.
Dec. 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“A clever partner might work out that I have a side suit of at least 2 without my bidding it.”

Again not true. There are 10-1-1-1, 11-1-1-0, 12-1-0-0, and 13-0-0-0 patterns without a side doubleton.
Dec. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does a slow non double suggest:

1. A hand that wanted to double for a diamond lead and decided against it; or

2. A hand that thinks 7NT is going down but then realised that double would ask for a diamond lead which was not wanted.
Dec. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“By this argument, you show more of your hand if you rebid in a new two card suit than if you rebid your six card suit.”

He didn't say he would rather show seven of his cards than six. You are extrapolating falsely.
Nov. 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Break suggests an abnormal lead, increasing the odds of a diamond lead…”

I am very unconvinced that this conclusion is true.

If partner West had doubled with KQJxx then a diamond lead is not abnormal. Such a holding is quite common for the lead directing double and therefore there is quite a high likelihood that a diamond is the normal lead.
Nov. 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My usual disclaimer that often it is the partner of the person who breaks tempo who is best able to decide what the tempo break suggests.

“A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative.” From Law 16.

Maybe a diamond is demonstrably suggested by a tempo break but I have not seen that demonstration here.

What say partner has another ace and thought of doubling then realised that a double might be asking for a diamond lead and so refrained from doubling. Now a diamond is the lead that is not suggested by the tempo break. If I lead a club or a heart and hit partner's ace and a diamond would have given them 13 tricks do we roll that one back too?

However, I am not even convinced by the idea that double asks for a diamond lead. I certainly have never made that agreement with any partner. The utility of “partner lead a diamond against 7NT because I have the ace (or even the queen) in your lead directing double suit seems very low. Often partner will have a KQ or similar of his own for the lead directing double so would be very likely to lead that suit anyway.

It seems much more useful to be able to ask for a different lead or to just say that given partner's double of diamonds with that suit under control that I do not think this contract is going to make. Against that at MPs it is arguable that doubling just because you are going to beat 7NT is not going to increase your score much. Although there are times, albeit rare, where it will.

A logical alternative is defined as

”A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select. "

I think as a minimum that we need to establish that the tempo break did demonstrably suggest a diamond. To do that we may need to establish that this partnership had the agreement that double would have meant lead a diamond. And even that might not be enough as there are obstacles in inferring that a slow non-double does demonstrably suggest leading a diamond.
Nov. 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes I understand that. In bridge the meaning of the bids are part of the objective facts. Perhaps this needs to be done after the hand is over.

If we just record the auction with the meanings of the calls as two identical auctions might contain different meanings for different players. For example whether 1S 2S 4S is a reasonable auction might depend on whether 2S shows 6-9 or is a constructive raise 8-10 or is a destructive raise 0-6. That additional information would need to be part of the objective record.
Nov. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Routine auction in online bridge sadly. My first experience was many years ago in a tournament where two boards in I called the TD to explain that my pick up partner had a wire after successfully perpetrating two similar auctions to the opening post on the first two boards.
Nov. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am interested in the auction that occurred at the table. Does anyone have or know the auction, including if possible the meanings of the bids. If you do not want to post publically then please send me a private message.

I am not particularly interested in who the players are, however it occurs to me that by requiring features of the bidding and play of a hand to not be publicised because it would identify players is a procedure that enables people to hide their nefarious infractions. I say that without making a comment on the particular hand because I do not know the actions at the table and therefore can't make a judgement on that.

This is part of what I mean by we throw away so much information. In chess, which I do not play so I have no emotive involvement, the rule is “In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, …” They do this and require this even when the game is recorded electronically as far as I am aware.

There maybe a time cost for this is bridge but it seems to me that it would provide incredibly good information to be able to check on the play after the event.

Again perhaps a little costly in terms of time but I think any such record should be annotated with the players agreements. Time could be saved when the agreement was not different than that on the system card which should also be filed.

When someone gets to an incredible contract then everyone would have access to the methods used and if suspicious patterns develop then they could be checked out with full information or something more like full information.
Nov. 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
None of those options.

In the partnerships with the simplest agreements here I play 3NT is a hand too strong for 3m rebid. There is no requirement for suit quality. We frequently use this as a springboard for slam with responder able to bid 4m on two or three card support and initiate cuebidding.

If the hand was really unsuitable for no trumps - say a void or small singleton in an unbid suit I might bid 4m rather than 3NT.

In some partnerships, like Frances I use 3NT to distinguish between hands with six diamonds and three card support for responder's major. With the various ranges and features spread between 2NT, 3m, 3NT, and 4m.
Nov. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Call the director after the first comment. It is not the player's job to tell a kibitzer what to do.
Nov. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A lot of people, I think reasonably, do not want to play on tablets.

Chess solved the problem with pieces and boards that automatically register which piece is played to which square. I am sure the same or very similar technology can be used with playing cards.

My understanding is that RFID playing cards are not too expensive. We would just need the cards to be played on a reader, like playing a piece to a square in chess, and this information can be recorded automatically. Similarly, bidding cards could use the RFID technology.
Nov. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure I had a comment from someone suggesting I might be referring to the same pair.
Nov. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For clarification my comment has nothing to do with the pair originally quoted in Eric's post. I do not even know who they are and my experiences are nothing to do with Honolulu.

This problem is more general than that. Any similarities in the particulars with my comment and the original situation are completely coincidental and unknowing on my part.
Nov. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I played that for a while and did not like the ambiguity that could occur.

I did not know Michael Courtney played it.
Nov. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure every bit of information is not equally valuable but it is undeniably a problem if players have additional information on which they are basing their actions.
Nov. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not in Honolulu but the same theme has been on my mind recently after a hearing about a particular hand.

The player involved has previously bid to the winning contract against me when I think the most likely explanation was that he somehow knew the result. On the previous hand that troubled me he asked for aces and found one missing and yet still bid the grand. Partner miraculously produced a void opposite the missing ace.

Something similar happened in the more recent hand where the same player shot the grand looking at 11 tricks. Partner produced, the not quite miracle but against the odds, two extra tricks. Again my thought was that the most likely explanation was a wire. It was MPs in a weakish field and bidding a small slam with much less risk was worth 75% so the grand under those conditions was way against the odds.

The problems are two-fold as I see it.

Firstly, very little is done to make the playing conditions such that such wires are more difficult to obtain. One of the things that I think we should have learnt from the recent cheating incidents based on the relative naivety of the methods was that anything that varies from a standard procedure should be stamped on. This should include player movement, discussion and even control of scorecards.

Secondly, in bridge, we throw away so much information that could be used to establish patterns. For example, whether these same players took other random actions that were less successful. By comparison, in chess players must keep an accurate record of the play. This is recorded for posterity. But also for analysis. The record is now automatically generated by the board and playing pieces. Equivalent technology could be used with cards without forcing a move to a wholly electronic environment.
Nov. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. The loss is not and should not be attributed to the players. At 9000 tables and $100 a table it would seem at first blush that a tournament should be able to be funded at less than the nearly one million dollars collected in entry fees.

2. When players have invested in travel etc to go to the tournament it would be completely irresponsible to increase the table fees after that commitment has been made.
Nov. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A variation I have used is:

2NT weak 6-9 or GF raise
3 limit raise.

We have changed to 2NT limit raise. But we still use

1m (2M) 2NT as the weak or GF raise. If 3NT is in the frame as it often is when agreeing a minor then we have the option of 3M with a GF raise that does not want to bid no trumps.
Nov. 20, 2018
1 2 3 4 ... 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ... 52 53 54 55
.

Bottom Home Top