Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Brian Davies
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 - lead directing
May 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North, who started the auction by showing a weak 2 in spades, suddenly decides to double clubs. Why? It can't be lead directing - he will be on lead against a heart contract.

I am sure of one thing - redouble should suggest playing in 5C XX.
May 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Probably the reason that we didn't double or bid 2S is that we were pretty ashamed of our opening bid.

We are told that “we are in a good place”, but if that involves leading anything except the obvious King of diamonds I fail to see the attraction.
May 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play a weak NT, but I don't see how it is the solution to this hand.

First are you sure of your agreements? Is 1NT, (3H), X penalty or take-out? Does this meaning change if the doubler is a passed hand?

If you have agreed that the double is take-out and partner doubles, will your decision be any easier? If you have agreed that the double is penalties, will your partner be stuck for a bid?
May 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The old insufficient bid coup might work against you on this hand.

Difficult for partner to bid the slam after you have barred him from bidding!
May 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The hands are here: http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?s=S87HKT986543DCKT6&n=SAT42HAJD875CAQ32&w=SKJ63HQ72DKQ4C754&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=3D

The hands were first discussed on another forum: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/78646-can-you-reach-slam/

For those passing as south, would you double / bid 3NT as North in the protective seat?
May 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Ian, you have asked a question about a very (English) Acol issue to an international audience and have largely been met with bewilderment because it is a non-issue in most systems.

Historically in Acol, the bid was non-forcing (so were sequences such as 1H, 2C, 2D and 1S, 2D, 2NT) and promised 5+ spades and 4+ diamonds. Eric Crowhurst in his major work on the system “Precision Bidding in Acol” describes it as non-forcing, but constructive. It is of course silly to quote a book that is over 40 years old, but the sad fact is that there are no modern texts on Acol.

But despite the lack of recent books, Acol has moved on and this bid should now be taught as forcing for one round and promising 5+ spades and 3+ diamonds (yes there are exceptions and you might even have fewer than 3). Frances Hinden wrote a good article in the magazine English Bridge (August 2015) on this sequence.

It is important also to consider follow-ups. After our partnership agreed to change the sequence to forcing, we found ourselves on a different wavelength after 1C, 1H; 2C, 2D; 2H, 3C. The 3C bid was intended as forcing but passed.
May 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
More fully Law 87 is:

LAW 87 - FOULED BOARD
A. Definition A board is considered to be fouled if the Director determines that a card (or more than one) was displaced in the board, or if he determines that the dealer or vulnerability differed between copies of the same board, and the contestants who should have had a score comparison did not play the board in identical form for such reason.
B. Pairs and Individual Scoring In scoring a fouled board the Director determines as closely as possible which scores were obtained on the board in its correct form and which in the changed form(s). He divides the scores on that basis into groups and rates each group separately as provided in the regulations for the tournament.
(In the absence of a relevant regulation the Director selects and announces his method.)
C. Teams Scoring See Law 86B2.

Rosalind is correct that it is a fouled board. It can be scored against other contestants - but only other contestants in the same group (before and after the board was fouled).
May 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed. So neither option applies.

The deal is not invalid. But it is not valid to score the board for pairs who played it after the rotation against pairs who played it before the rotation.
May 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A 3 opening for example is a pre-empt, not a psyche.

Whilst I am not suggesting that a strong NT is a pre-empt, it can often have the mildy pre-emptive effect of making it difficult for the opponents to compete. This is a not insignificant factor in choosing to open 1NT?
May 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a further unanswered question, based on the fact that bridge is a competitive game and there is no law stopping the opps from bidding! How often will we gain from denying the opponents bidding space, by bidding 1NT first and forcing the opponents to risk a two-level bid if they want to compete.
May 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ok, I seem to be in a minority on this one.

My point was not to deny that this is a poor 12 count (it is of course). I was trying to suggest that the reason for playing a weak NT is to get to 1NT before the opps and these type of 12 counts are rather common. Many would open an equally poor 15 count if playing a strong NT (I tested this: https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-0y0glhbv63/ - but I concede that I was surprised that a significant minority chose not to open 1NT.

We are vulnerable, but this is match points and sitting 1st seat (this is a far more risky opening in 3rd seat). Kieran Dyke pointed out the risk of conceding 1,100 - fair enough, but since this is MPs and -500 or -200 might well be a bottom, I am just as worried by these results. On the other hand a weak NT can be an effective way of preventing the opponents getting an easy route into the auction. This is simply the judgement that you make when choosing to put a weak NT onto your convention card.

Maybe it comes down to what your partner expects from an opening weak NT? For us, this opening would be at the bottom end, but within partner's expectations.
May 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you added another king, I predict that everyone who plays a 15-17 NT will open 1NT. I agree that it is not a great hand, but if you are playing a weak NT you are aiming to get to that 1NT high ground. It is an easy 1NT opening for me in any seat except third seat.
April 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why put 12-14 on your convention card if you are not going to use it?
April 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would rule 2NT - 4
April 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pass. The bidding has told you that East did not have a 2D bid. No doubt there was UI, but you know that East has forgotten the system anyway based on AI.
April 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Did he miss by a level in that he intended to pull out 2♥ but missed and picked 1♥? ”

David does add: “… intending to bid 2♥.” - which is why most are judging that Law 25 applies, I think.
April 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David Burn, maybe it is the way that you have framed the original post: “You inadvertently bid 1♥, intending to bid 2♥.” This seems to imply that the facts would support the judgement that the 1♥ call was unintended. Based on this, responders are stating that Law 25 should apply.

If you had framed the question as you later did: “You are the Director, called to a table where East has bid 1♠ and South had bid 1♥ (those are the bidding cards face up on the table)”, then it is less clear-cut and is a matter of fact whether the call is unintended. In this case, I would suggest that the default assumption is that the call is intended unless there is clear evidence to convince the director that the call is unintended.

It is not obvious, it is a question of fact and only the director can make this judgement at the table based on the evidence available to her/him.

.
April 18, 2018
Brian Davies edited this comment April 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In England, the usual practice is that the bids remain on the table until the opening lead is faced.
Feb. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
MW: He thought he had 3-6-1-6? Even with 16 cards the sequence does not exist.
Jan. 16, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top