Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Yu Chang
1 2 3 4 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because I trust human nature, no one would be trying to deceive in such a disgusting way.

But of course, I may be too naive to think that way.
.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hitch is reactive. Remark is active.

I think the remark is less likely to be deceiving but you still cannot draw conclusion.
You still have to decide whether to finesse.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Max. Good players (usually) has pride and would not use the remark to deceive.
A weak player probably did not know restrict choices and thought his/her QJ will be dropped
since that is how he/she would play.

But for a good player like Steve, the remark would not change his decision, the percentage play is still to finesse.

Also, if they really try to deceive, they would not make it obvious by saying something.

I would always give the opponents benefit of the doubt unless the acting/action is obvious.
Such as hitch with a singleton or with 2 equal cards like KQ doubleton.

Another example, in a club game, my partner lead a high spot card through dummy's Kxx toward my AJxx. This declarer thought about it for awhile (like it really matters) and then played low from table.
It did not take me long to play the Ace.
This declarer has QT in his hand and if I played low, he could discard all losers in this suit to get an overtrick.
My respect for that declarer dropped several degrees.

Sometimes I wonder why they do it.
You will only gain from weak players, Naive me thinks everyone want to play well against real good players, instead of taking advantage from (almost) senior citizens like myself.
Feb. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray,

The “back and forth” included 4C by East, 4D by West (both in uncertain tone) and a couple of “Oh, I am not sure”.

You said yourself, “the director's ruling should have been based on what each player said in private, not after joint discussion”.

So the talk at the table in front of us was both irrelevant and unnecessary.
Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The electronic play can be programmed to simulate the screen.
Your partner's bid is not displayed to you until RHO had done his bid.

Same can be programmed for cards played for each trick.

The issue is this may cause more delays.
But it can hide bidding/playing tempo from each player.
Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We all have seen this kind of “hitch” in club games all the time.
Most of them were innocent.

Once, I have Axxx in my hand and JT8 on the table.
When I played small to the table, LHO took a card out and then changed it back.
He finally won it with Queen.

He played another suit to get out and then I decided to finesse his partner (RHO) for King.
It turned out he had KQ doubleton.

I did not call director to try to adjust the score but I did report this after the game.
I asked the director to talk to the player and also asked her to keep a note just in case this behavior happens again.
Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, I would not be able to make something up with such specifics.
East said he could/might/would bid 4C, not 4D.
West then said he might respond 4D (which seems to be a forcing bid between them).

I heard these after the board is played and I still am not sure why the director came to our table after the board is played and check with them on this in front of us.
They could not determine how they were damaged at first.

I honestly did not hear takeout double was mentioned by either player.
However, I did not hear the private talks director had with them,
East could have suggested he might double in the private talk.
I do know East was not offered to change his bid (since he questioned the director why)
but West had the choice to change his last pass but he did not.
Feb. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves.”

David, Thank you. Good point above.

I feel takeout X of 3S by East was not 100%, as you said.
I feel 3NT by West after the X was much less than likely. West has the option to pass the X.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, she did talk to them privately.

I do not understand why she had to talk to them together in front of us after the board is played either. Based on my limited understanding of the issue, that should have been clarified when they had the private talks.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“East's pass over 2♠ at the other table is very wrong.”

Yes, we did give a hard time to our teammates at the other table. :-)
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray,

1. I simply reported what I had observed. I did not add or change anything that I saw first hand.
2. No one asked me anything except to confirm the 3S bid was weak and I forgot to alert.
3. The director did not tell me hoe she did the poll. Whether X by East was suggested.
4. It was not disclosed to me what East and West had said to the director privately before the play started.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
By OP, if you mean original poster, then I need to clarify I did not suggest that.
A non-expert like myself would have never considered 3NT on my own.
Even if East did takeout, as West I would pass and hope to collect 300.

It was the “director” who make the adjustment based on West's word that he would bid 3NT
(after considering some other bids).
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I made 3S with a favorable first lead.
And I believe I can limit it to -1 with a round suit lead.

If the rule was 3SX -1, you would not see this post from me.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, the bidding were correct.
The key issue is the failure to alert 3S was weak.
East did not bid probably because he thought 3S was limit raise.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The director did took East and West away from the table.
But I do not know what they were asked and what they answer was.
When the process finished, we were asked to continue.

Later when we finished, East did ask why he did not get a chance to withdraw the pass and
change the bid. The director's answer was only the last bid (by West) can be withdrawn.
I did not understand what these were all about at the time.

EW are much stronger players than we are. They are ranked high in D21 Open flight.
To me, they are definitely experts.
Feb. 11
Yu Chang edited this comment Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Rather than changing the rules or having 2 sets of rules, it may be best to treat UI situation as a irregularity.
Director should be called and he/she will explain the options.
This way, at least there is less argument at the end. Less experienced players can be protected too.

One thing I will never do, if my opponent committed UI, is to shout out loud that “his hand is not even that good and he bid 3H. I suggest the director should have a serious talk with him.”
People needs to realize it is not your call or the offender's call whether the action was right.
It is the director's decision and he/she should make it based on polling other players.
Jan. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play reverse Drury as a limit raise.
A hand with 3-card support 10+ HCP 8-losers would be adequate.
Just a little lower than what you described.

I knew my 2H signoff was a little pessimistic.
However, in this survey I started a few days, 2/3 player would bid 2H too.

https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-cct8pbawdq/

My plan was (1) avoid risking 3H -1 when/if the distribution is bad, (2) go directly to game if my partner shows any interest.

If the chance for game is just 50-50, I would rather stay at 2H and try get an extra overtrick.
They may mis-defend, not expecting I have a full open hand.
What I did not think of is opponent might come out balancing, I could get a chance to X for 300 too. Next time, same bidding happens, I will still bid 2H with this hand hoping for opp balance and a chance to X.
Jan. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, Again, both of your good points are well taken.

I will remember pass right now is not same as selling out. I will definite get another chance to bid. At the table, I only thought about doing the “right thing” in my own view, which is to compete to 3H.

Thanks to you and some others, I realize my own opinion does not matter. I have to think about what other players will do in this situation since the director will make a decision based on their collective opinion, not mine.
Jan. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Gene. No, it was not constructive and I have tried get off since the start. But using manufactured hands get on me. I will not continue.

This post is made to find out what is the right thing to do, not to look for support.
Jan. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They pass because of the UI, not because the hand is not good enough to compete to 3H.
There is a difference.
Jan. 25
1 2 3 4 5
.

Bottom Home Top