Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wayne Burrows
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have played on any competitive auction where the opponents have bid a suit and where we do not have a cue below three of our suit that:

2NT is weak or GF raise
3suit is invitational raise

If you are worried about wrong siding 3N after a GF 2NT then you have the option of 3-theirsuit.
Oct. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And now the “weak” New Zealanders include World Champions Bach and Cornell.
Oct. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the player had a unique code and entered that then the scorer would know which direction should be positive therefore it would be all but impossible to score on the wrong side.

I enter my code.

The scorer then knows i am EW.

I enter 4S N = and the scorer refuses to accept that score. I either have to change declarer to E/W or give the machine to north or south.
Sept. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Any boards where EW and NS are declaring in the same strain.”

Yeah right.

We had a score entered as 2S= W in this event where east-west's spades were two small opposite three small. Several pairs played it in 2S by north or south making. As best I can tell this was neither flagged nor corrected. Despite the benefactors going to the officials and asking for it to be changed.

Its all very well to have some system and to write something in the bulletin but when it does not actually happen in a clearly blatant error you may as well not have those systems.
Sept. 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Double entry would be add a level of checking. If both NS and EW entered their scores in their own devices then whenever there was a discrepancy it would be automatically flagged.

Of course this would not eliminate all errors but it would reduce the number by at least an order of magnitude.
Sept. 28, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Would someone object to a precision 1D opener on AJTx x KT98xxx x?”

There is a flaw in tying the regulations to someone's or some group's judgement. If you are allowed to use your judgement then why cannot another player use their judgement. It seriously is not workable if you have a limit of “n points” and then allow different people or worse certain people or types of players (eg experts) to use their judgement to work around the rules.
Sept. 22, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top