Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wayne Burrows
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Most natural responses to partner's takeout double would need an alert as not forcing.

That seems wrong.
Aug. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is not a special partnership understanding.
Aug. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The facts as described if taken at face value leave me feeling the Dutch were cheated out of their medal.
Aug. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is absolutely clear.

“Non-forcing jump changes of suit responses to opening bids or overcalls, and nonforcing new suit responses by an unpassed hand to opening bids of one of a suit.”

The distinction between “responses to opening bids” and “to opening bids of one of a suit” means that a 1NT opening is clearly not included. The only sensible inference is that the intention is that non-forcing non-jump new suit responses to 1NT do not need an alert.
Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We require alerts at our clubs.

Even if not, hopefully some time they will play tournaments and then get ruled against for not alerting if this agreement is alertable and they still play it.
Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We had the same situation this weekend. Not under WBF rules. I opened an 8-10 1NT and partner bid 2 which I did not alert. After the hand the opponents claimed that 2 needed an alert. The NZ Bridge chief director eventually decreed that 2 was not alertable.

If 2M is alertable then thousands of beginners who do not learn transfers will need to start alerting.
Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What did he think a non-alerted 2 bid showed?

And what was their system agreement about what double of a natural 2 bid showed?

Seriously this is the doubler's and his partner's own misunderstanding.

If the WBF are going to rule this way then they need to say what an unalerted 2 bid can be assumed to mean.
Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 a round earlier is much better.
Aug. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I completely disagree.

Take for example a standard American 1C. The percentage of balanced hands (with short club if you like) compared with unbalanced hands with long clubs is a matter for general bridge knowledge.

That is if I tell you that I open the balanced hands with or without short club and long club unbalanced hands 1C then it is your problem and preparation to determine the frequencies.

I use 1C only for illustrative purposes the same principle applies to any other opening.

The only exception would be if a system has two bids or calls for the same hand. Then I think I may be entitled to information about the frequency or criteria for each opening.
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also undiscussed is not a sufficient answer when the partnership has an implicit understanding.
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unfortunately there is another class of players who hide behind “undiscussed” to be as unhelpful as possible.
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bridge is a young person's game always has been always will be. Young people get older and still enjoy playing. Unfortunately for 50 years we have not got enough young people playing.
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree except that polls are not required by the laws and at times are not helpful. Players can be polled when they are dummy if they are away from the table or between rounds if necessary.

In my view polls are most often impractical and of little value especially if the sample size is small and biased as is usually the case.
Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When I played squash, badly, and wanted to play interclub events it was a requirement for all players to attend a session or sessions on the laws of the game. That meant that players had an understanding of the laws.

The motivation was partially for a different reason as the players were expected to umpire other games when they were not playing at least some of the time.

However it seems to me that the idea of requiring players to attend information sessions about the laws of the game is a good one. Certainly the status quo of players who have no idea about some laws is at times intolerable. Basically for insisting on the laws one has to subject yourself to an earful of discourteous nonsense at times - although the director last weekend was clear in telling my opponents that I had a right to point out a tempo irregularity.
Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not sure that you should be deemed to have not accepted the lead. However what might amount to the same thing is that not calling the director immediately might jeopardise your rights. Although that seems a bit one-sided as both sides have a responsibility to call the director once someone draws attention to an infraction.

It seems to me that presuming the lead has not been accepted and leading from her own hand is just as remiss as waiting a few seconds and then saying I want to accept the lead. I don't see why declarer's actions should jeopardise the defender and the defender's action should also jeopardise the defender in this situation.

Best to call the director immediately.
Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not saying that it should apply here but the answer to your question is because you now have more information.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This habit of director's to make rulings many hours after the infraction is ridiculous in my view.

My record is in an eight round event for a problem that occurred in round two we got a ruling after the finish of round eight. In addition I was given a warning for asking the director at the lunch break about the ruling and again at the end of play.

More recently in two matchpoint pairs events with lunch breaks between sessions I was given rulings during the next session after the break.

I think players should have a right to know their scores before starting the next session. It creates an uneven playing field if some players know their score but other players do not because they are waiting for director's rulings.

In addition a director coming up to you during a session to give a controversial ruling from a previous session is disruptive.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I always thought that partner is essentially playing you for 7-8 points and therefore you do not need to take action with an unremarkable hand of that strength.

I figured the spades were bad when the opponents could not raise; the hearts are obviously good; the diamonds are bad; and the clubs are of unknown quality. They are good if they are opposite useful cards in partner's hand and poor if they are in LHO's suit.

On the actual hand partner had stiff diamond and cAKxx so 4 was good but despite this poll eliminating more hands than I feel comfortable with, as Steve comments on, I cannot get 4H up to making close to 50% which is what is needed at matchpoints.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am surprised that there are not more bidders or doublers.

The pollees are also passing with partner's hand and we have various partscores or a penalty against 2D.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure in practice I agree. I was discarding them from the simulations to try and get 4H making often enough to justify a raise with xxx KQx xxx QJxx
Aug. 18
.

Bottom Home Top