Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Ambrose Mackie
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 17 18 19 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Kiat. I am very interested in this idea and have been thinking about it for some time. If you do decide to get a group together please keep me in the loop!
Nov. 8
Ambrose Mackie edited this comment Nov. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Alan - yes it is more accurate to say that. I think here it has the same practical effect.
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I agree with all of that. A deal occurring where someone makes a freak bid is more likely than a deal occurring where someone makes a freak bid and someone forgets their system. But imo this is not relevant. The point is that, as responder, you do not “know” that any system forget has taken place until you are woken up.

Imagine as follows: player A sends player B a convention card with the OP convention on it (“the 5-4 convention”). B reads most of the card but not the section that contains the 5-4 convention. He has never heard of the convention. As per the OP, player B hears the alert of his parter and then sees his partner pull 3N to 4H. He can conclude that, without him knowing, they had agreed some kind of convention where 3N shows a heart suit. Without the alert player B would probably have assumed that opener had the freak. Knowing all this, would you allow him to try and find a better spot?

In practice, this scenario may not be likely (and in 95% of cases responder would have been woken up by the 4 bid to remember the system) but the TD should give the non-offending side the benefit of the doubt.

Of course, all this just shows how much more like real bridge a game with screens is.
Oct. 31
Ambrose Mackie edited this comment Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't this a probability fallacy? You have already forgotten your system at this point. This fact doesn't make the “freak” possibility that partner has missorted his hand more or less likely.
Oct. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Only doubling as love all MPs
Oct. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm sure Ethan can decide for himself what he finds offensive.
Oct. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Totally disagree. It is completely fair game to criticise words in a bridge publication which you find unacceptable without being accused of virtue-signalling or “showing off”.

The OP is in no way offensive but your categorising of the OP as having “so called ‘values’” is. In fact, it is a personal attack.
Oct. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paging Godwin… But I take your point
Oct. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think this is the wrong conclusion. What needs to change is not the timing of the question but the stigma around the answer. The defending partnership should simply have a truthful line ready for for this question and use it every time it is asked. E.g. “All things equal, we tend to lead passively but obviously partner will use his judgement on each hand in isolation.”

If declarer is going to try and get information by asking vague questions like this, he can't be too aggrieved when it leads him astray.

Although, as others point out a box on the convention card may avoid this scenario altogether.
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Same as Frances. Thought it was normal.
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“What baffles me, after reading the Mindless Revoke thread elsewhere, is why you would play any other way.”

I think a fair few people on the other thread were clear on why they might behave differently.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was it alerted and explained or simply alerted?
Oct. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Completely agree with Mike. If the opponent doesn't ask and so do not learn the true agreement, they are already protected by the laws. But if we make the information UI then it will become best strategy to ask about every single unalerted bid the opponets make which is obviously absurd.

Making this UI would be looking to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Oct. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is what I thought as well. Or maybe he is giving reverse remainder count.

Kit remarked in the article: “If partner had J10xx of spades he wouldn't have played the jack of spades on the second round, since your ♠8 would have been sufficient to force an honor.” But this also applies to JTx, so I don't think it carries much weight.

That said, I thought it was a great hand and the logic leading to a spade continuation is excellent.
Sept. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You almost had me convinced as it could be quite a nice safety play in case p has had to bid 1S on a three card suit but yes I think at this vul the pros don't quite outweigh the cons.
Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Deleted.
Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would certainly pull a double of 4S (especially as I usually play double as basically takeout here). You have 6-7 offensive tricks and only 2-3 defensive tricks.
Aug. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4NT is not ambiguous here. All blame to East
Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice summary Paul, but I don't agree with your point (d) because I don't accept the concept of a “defective agreement”. Imo you either have an agreement or you don't. I.e.:

“West knew that the partnership agreement is to play what East has been taught.” If West doesn't know what East has been taught, this is equivalent to saying “our agreement is whatever my partner takes the bid to mean (on the basis of what she has been taught)”, which is the equivalent of saying “no agreement”.
Aug. 8
Ambrose Mackie edited this comment Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Frances said: “alert penalty doubles of suit contracts below 3NT”.

From what the blue book says, it is not just penalty doubles below 3NT that should be alerted but also undiscussed doubles that might be penalty. I have been ruled against on this basis before which left a pretty sour taste. I am also not clear whether you think that the 2C bid in the OP should have been alerted or not. (Of course, from a common sense point of view it should have been explained as “undiscussed” before the opening lead.)

I think the fact that this thread has generated so much discussion shows that you are overstating the simplicity of the regulations.
Aug. 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 17 18 19 20
.

Bottom Home Top