Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Will Roper
1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 24 25 26 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a director I would try and poll people before I made a certainty ruling….

I would also note that for such a complete introduction, I was curious as to whether N/E had anything to add to this. We had a hand recently where it went: (P)-P-(P)-1-(1)-2-(4). Now the board went under the screen for several minutes and came back with P-(P). Who do you think has been thinking? The answer is that one player was considering raising to 5.

Another thing that would be useful is the pairs style. Some pairs like to go for 32HCP slams. Others have the agreement that they only accept Quant bids on maximums, others on non minimums. Of course, all of this is theoretical and the director should ask why the player bid 4N.

Without this I cannot rule as a TD. As a player, I am in line with MR's thoughts on ethics. The 4N bid looks induced by the 3N bid and therefore nothing good can come of it, be it a logical alternative or not.
Feb. 3, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my partnerships:

Option 1.
2M = Shape ask
3M = Cue-ask
4M = Good (almost) running minor & 3/4M, Nothing else e.g Qxx,x, x, AKJTxxxx

Option 2.
2M = Waiting
3M = Support with Hx in partners second suit
4M = As before
Feb. 2, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My reasoning for ducking the K was pretty much what happened at the table:
1. I didn't rate my LHO to underlead the Ace any day of the week.
2. I was hoping to get some reaction from an opponent when they won the trick.

“it is futile to try and guess what might happen at other tables”

PAB fan?
Jan. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I never said it was my S2. Nor did I say it was true. I have seen S1 several times in the Channel trophy.

I wouldn't rate any of them as average…..I think they are all excellent players. I can confidently wager on this if you so wish.
Jan. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Italians play something more based around shape:

Dbl = Single suited minor
2N = Any 2 suiter
3 = 5+-4
3 = 5+-4
3 = Natural

They also play this over (1)-P-(2)-P-(P)
Jan. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Who said these players were non-experts?

You will never pick up on the fact that an opponent is making use of this information….They probably don't realise they are using it themselves.
Jan. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whether there is a need or not is not completely relevant. If you have agreed that you play Smith at t2 then that is what you play. If the 2 encourages then it creates the illusion that East holds 5. Similarly if the 2 is agreed suit preference then throwing the club looks irrational.
Jan. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am biased as I can see both hands but in order to answer I need to know what the 2 was? If Smith Peters which way round is it?
Jan. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1) it is a lot less live than it was originally. In fact for some people this auctions is dead.

2) 2 implies 6 so they probably have at least a partial fit.
Jan. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Standard is definitely penalties. However, I subscribe to a simple view that I don't double partscores for penalties.
Jan. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not really…..

Partnership 1: priority is shape so bid 2N = 1354
Partnership 2: priority is stopper so bid 3 = stop ask
Partnership 3: play first new suit as nebulous so bid 2
Partnership 4: play cheapest minor as nebulous so bid 3
Partnership 5: Don't play standard

What does this demonstrate. That it is entirely partnership agreement. Do you prioritise shape, stoppers or artificiality.

I at various points have played all 5 of these. I have no strong opinion other than that FSF is a very unwieldy tool. Hence I currently fall into partnership 5.
Jan. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry Kit. Was half asleep when I wrote that. I basically need to add one more bid.

What I was going for is: player explains partners alert. Partner now has certainty that they are on same wavelength which may change their decisions going forward…..
Jan. 25, 2017
Will Roper edited this comment Jan. 25, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would you compromise on this though if you were at a club duplicate and were already behind as is?

What if your opponents were a lot weaker than you?

I was taught you either ask about everything or only ask when you plan to do something (Shortened version). I generally have adhered to the latter in an attempt to keep the game moving. My second reason is better demonstrated:

1-2*
2*-2*
3*-?

2 & 2 = relay
2 = Diamonds
3 = 5143

Now if partner explains these wrongly, I have to be ethical and do as I would before. However, what if the explanations are correct. Now I am on more solid ground then I might have been if:

a) my partner is forgetful
b) the system has changed

i.e in the above situation I might have previously hedged with a nebulous 3 asking bid. Now because of the knowledge I can now put down an outgoing bid which sets …..Is this unethical?
Jan. 24, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
deleted
Jan. 24, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is an interesting thread which has taught me that I have been screwed over twice in the past year. Thanks! I agree with what MR says. However, I do have two questions:

1. A lot of players, who know their agreements, would answer the question of the alert of 2N simply as “enquiry”. Bearing in mind they may play unusual responses, are they being unintentionally unethical as a result? If they are then surely describing fully isn't it a potential memory aid.

2. This seems to open up a case for people asking about every bid in the auction. If their opponents have had a misunderstanding, then said player could “trap” them into having to following through. Meanwhile a player (like me) doesn't ask and now, when my opponents legitimately “wake up”, has no recourse.
Jan. 24, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Abstained as it is largely down to partnership agreement.
Jan. 24, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Love a flexible action. Don't think they will make overs.
Jan. 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bit of an awkward question for young people (I noticed at least 3 when glancing through the list). A “not yet” option or similar might be appropriate.

Alternatively perhaps we should not vote and disrupt the poll :)
Jan. 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nick S told me that in order to have mastery of the game in most scenario's, I needed to play a million hands. I keep a reasonable eye on this stat therefore and broke the 100,000 mark some point late last year. However, a large proportion of these are online or bidding/discussion with a ratio of around 80-20.
Jan. 8, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks
Jan. 7, 2017
1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 24 25 26 27
.

Bottom Home Top