Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Brian Davies
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is non-leaping Michael's?
Sept. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You also need agreements about actions in 4th seat and 6th seat. E.g. if (2D), 2NT is natural, what is (2D), P, (2H), P, (P), 2NT? Is it still natural? Or unusual? Or …?

What is the meaning of (2D), P, (2H), Dbl? Or (2D), P, (2H), 2S?

As someone who plays the multi, I find that opponents have usually discussed the meaning of 2nd seat actions, but get muddled over these type of 4th and 6th seat auctions.
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3NT is 100% forcing after the positive response in my world.
Sept. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IG: “If you can't simply and accurately describe your methods then change them.”

This is a long discussion with many unhelpful comments. But this has to be the most daft.

I am sympathetic to the goal of properly disclosing your methods, but this should not necessitate changing methods. Most of us upgrade and downgrade based on many criteria and usually it is a combination of criteria that allow us to make our best judgement. Our valuation method will be difficult (if not impossible) to fully describe - let alone quantify in some fractional division of the Milton Work count.

The convention card can state the range together with a comment “upgrades and downgrades are possible”. This has fully satisfied the disclosure obligation in my opinion.
Aug. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I expect an announcement if “12-14” to be a three point range centred on 13 HCPs. If players upgrade and downgrade symmetrically, I accept that this is normal bridge. You might add a comment such as “upgrades and downgrades possible” as a note to the convention card, but I doubt that this adds much information to any player experienced enough to be able to read a convention card. Describing the range as 11+ to 15- would be misleading.

Unfortunately, I find that most players do not upgrade and downgrade symmetrically. There are two possibilities: (1) they upgrade very frequently and almost never downgrade. The simple fact is that the range is in reality weaker than announced. I find that strong-no-trumpers often fall into this trap (as Frances says, “weak NT is a completely different animal”). Very often a more honest announcement for a strong NT would be 14+ to 16+ rather than 15-17.

The second possibility is more often found among weak-no-trumpers. They tend to upgrade nice 11's into the range and downgrade bad 15's into the range. They never seem to downgrade bad 12's out of the range or upgrade good 14's out of the range. The range is centred on 13, but is wider, in reality, than the announced range. A more honest announcement would be 11+ to 15-.
Aug. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I disagree with the unnecesary descriptors added to objectives choices”.

This.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do the pair have an agreement (explicit or implicit) to do this?
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did partner hesitate? Or opponent?
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You never avoid splintering with an ace?
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would not open 2C. I prefer 1S or an appropriate four-level bid.
Aug. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with this.

In the context of our weak NT system this double shows a strong NT hand.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's a pity. We might have been a great partnership! :)
Aug. 8
Brian Davies edited this comment Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But the laws provide for inferential understandings. Law 40.A.1.(a) explicitly state that partnership understandings may be arrived at implicitly through mutual experience or awareness.
Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“the EBU rule is that, unless you KNOW that partner's bid does not carry an alertable meaning, you MUST alert it.”

This is correct. But this is not an onerous requirement. As I tried to illustrate in the earlier post, your knowledge of the meaning of partner's bid might be agreed explicitly or through other indirect means, but competent players usually know know what partner's bid means (they also try to avoid making ambiguous bids without discussion).

It will be a rare auction where partner makes a bid and you do not know the intention of the bid, but in this case the EBU regulations (Properly in my opinion) require an alert.
Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Unless you are a mind reader, you can't possibly know what partner might or might not intend.”

Really?! Do you not discuss methods with your partner? Surely your discussions cover more than specific sequences? I would discuss our general approach as well. Discussions would include generalised agreements, which might apply in undiscussed situations. I will also have a pretty good idea what partner might intend from: our past experience; our past shared experience with other partners; the standard approach for players in our geographical area or our skill level; shared reading (books / magazines) etc.

I don't know you Richard, but if we sat down to play I would have a pretty good idea of your intended meaning, based simply on your many (usually well thought out) posts on Bridgewinners. Playing with you, I might assume a bid to be natural unless discussed and agreed as artificial…
Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes agree with above comments. We play Lebensohl and our Halmic (or SWINE) run-outs if responder doubles and take-out doubles.
Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, this is concerned with disclosure.

How should this be disclosed in England Gordon? My understanding was that it should be disclosed on the front of the convention card in the section “Other Aspects of the System Which Opponents Should Note”.

But I have never once seen it disclosed and I agree with the opening post that I think it should be disclosed as it is information that I would want to know.
July 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This would have been useful information to have posted initially as voters will assume a penalty double in the absence of any indications to the contrary.

Under your scheme, East will more frequently be unable to stand the double and may have as much as six or seven HCPs. Now bidding becomes more attractive.

If East expects a full value penalty double he will only run if near broke (up to say 4 HCPs) and there is little prospect of game.
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Three bidding polls running with a double void. Where do you guys play?
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Deleted - nonsense
June 17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
.

Bottom Home Top