Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wayne Burrows
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Conditions of Contest say:

“Any team not seated and ready to play at the announced starting time of a match or a session of a match will be assessed a penalty”

Why were the Netherlands not deemed to be not “ready to play”?
Aug. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Really strange. There must be more to this than stated.

What does “not properly announced” actually mean?
Aug. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wherever possible matches should be played in multiples of 16 boards. Sixteen boards is a test over each vulnerability and dealer combination. Anything else introduces a potential bias.
May 24, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have two options in different partnerships.

However first, even without this method of showing singletons after a transfer I have always played:

1NT 2; 2 3M as a 5-4 hand either Smolen or natural (in weak NT systems).

Therefore

1NT 2; 2 3 was five-five forcing.

With the method described above you can use Stayman and then 3M as forcing (Smolen or otherwise).

In one partnership I played

1NT 2; 2 3 as an ask for a three-card major. So this catered for 54 major hands.

In my current methods I am using 3M after Stayman as specifically a slam interest hand with a 54 major hand. We have two major asks

1. Stayman

2. 2NT sort of puppet Stayman.

This allows responder to immediately differentiate between slam interest hands and merely game-going hands.

All hands with only game interest go through 2NT.

Weak, Invitational and slam hands go through 2 (Stayman).

I have some free space after the 2NT enquiry so eventually I might put some specific slam hands into 2NT as well.
May 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have played 1NT Transfer; Accept New Suit as a shortage for some time.

Knowing the shortage is a very good discriminator between both 3NT and 5m hands and game and slam hands.

You lose some of the advantage of showing a shortage if you cannot do it below 3NT. Its not much use to know at 4m, for example that you belong in 3NT.

After showing the singleton opener has the following options:

1. Show a fit for the major

2. Show a stopper for no trumps

3. Bid a new suit. I term this as a scramble looking for a fit. Opener can bid the other major (when the shortage is in a minor) as a search for a fit and responder without that major can rebid 3NT fairly freely and allow opener to pass or pull depending on whether they have a stopper(s).

4. Cue-bid the shortage with a great hand (nothing wasted) and a fit for opener's major. After this bid responder can often place opener's cards very accurately.

An analogy to the last option is available on any continuations that involve opener bidding a new suit. We have the general rule that responder's cue shows a fit and extra values and opener's cue shows a fit and nothing wasted (we have more precise rules if anyone is interested but you can make the dividing line whatever you like in your partnership).

1NT 2
2 3
3 4 = fit for spades and extra values. 4 would be just game values.

1NT 2
2 3
3 4
4 = fit for clubs and nothing wasted.
May 12, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One is allowed to bid on probability not just certainty.

1. It is odds on that partner has the sQ - I make it about 65%.

2. If not partner might have any of these holdings that will or might allow the contract to make:

a/ doubleton spade

b/ four or five spades

c/ sJT(x)

etc
April 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The link doesn't say that – it says that 5 of trump suit says 0 aces period.”

Actually no. There is discussion of finding the trump queen as follows:

“The steps 1,2,3 need modification to discover the presence or absence of the Q of trumps.

The responses in full are :
1 step = 1+/-Q or 0+Q or 3-Q
2 steps = 2+/-Q
3 steps = 3+Q
4 steps = trumps = zilch = 0-Q
higher = 4 aces and this is the K response.

(“3+Q” => 3 aces with the Q, “0-Q” => no aces, no Q, “2+/-Q” => 2 aces and perhaps Q.)”
April 2, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is a very weak reason to reject this method.

1. You are free to play this method with the additional condition that 1m 4M is natural or whatever your preferred agreement is. Similarly for other sequences where you prefer to use 4T+1 for any other purpose.

2. 1m 4M as natural is not that great a method. You gain a little in preemption but lose room when opener has a great hand.

3. It focuses on a minor weakness and ignores the majority of the method.
April 1, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
L16(B)(1)(b)

“(b) A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.”
Feb. 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. That is less clear. Logical alternatives are defined loosely as

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a “significant proportion” of such players, of whom it is judged “some” might select it.

8% could easily be some of a significant proportion.

2. Even if it is not then Law 73C needs to be taken into account by with respect to a 3 bidder. Were they carefully avoiding taking advantage of the unauthorised information?
Feb. 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. I am pretty sure that pass is a logical alternative. Judging by this poll pass is probably a logical alternative for everyone.

2. The committee ruling that I saw said something like “3 was not suggested by the break in tempo”. This is the wrong judgement to make. One does not have to prove that 3 is suggested. It is enough that is could be demonstrably suggested. Further more we do not require an absolute suggestion of 3. The law requires for 3 to be suggested over pass. This is a relative statement. Essentially is 3 more likely to be right than pass after the hesitation. I think that the hesitation suggests acting rather than passing. For me just because the penalty pass excludes the likelihood of the hesitation being based on a marginal raise does not exclude the possibility that the slow pass suggests 3 over pass.

3. In this situation we have a poll that suggests that nearly everyone would pass. And yet the player at the table in receipt of additional information chose the winning action of 3. This is illustrative of a real problem in looking at these situations objectively. That problem is that the (regular) partner of the hesitator is much more likely to know what a hesitation means for this particular partner than what an objective assessment might conclude.
Feb. 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes then North bid 3.

The committee ruled that 3 was not suggested by the slow pass.
Feb. 24, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Apparently a slow pass does not suggest 3 over pass or so the appeal committee thought
Feb. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True - East was inexperienced too.

I think you can expect partner to have club cards too. I was imagining something like

KJTxx Qxx AQ Kxx and hoping for a diamond lead.

Anyway it wasn't really a bidding problem it was an unauthorised information problem with 2NT having no alert and west pulling quickly. The numbers so far tell me that passing 3NT is a logical alternative. I was pretty sure of that any way but wanted a more objective view.
Feb. 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I meant north.

Maybe you are right but it seemed to me that if north was a solid citizen it is less likely that partner has the hand for 3NT.
Feb. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are not bidding directly over the 3 bid. Partner bid 3NT.
Feb. 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So essentially the regulators are saying if I have a weak reasonably balanced hand not only do I have to tell you about that but I must pass and leave the other side as much bidding room as possible.

It is hard to imagine less well thought out reasoning in a competitive game.
Feb. 5, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Les the NZ regulations do not say that 1NT must be “balanced”.

They define balanced as you quoted and they say for the purpose of classifying 1NT openings.

They then define colours of systems - Green, Blue, Red.

For a Green system your 1NT must be balanced. And without going into all the details some lower grade tournaments may have such a restriction.

However by labeling your system Red you are not restricted to the balanced definition for a 1NT opening.
Jan. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“A special partnership understanding
is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament.”

It is an absurd proposition that “1NT might contain a singleton” is something that “a significant number of players” in any tournament would not understand.

I mean i know some bridge players are thick but it really is patronising to assume they would not understand our “1NT might contain a singleton”.
Jan. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is flawed to have regulations constrain judgement. This repeatedly causes problems and yet the regulators insist on regulating judgement.
Nov. 8, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top