Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Csaba Czimer
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
and then? On 5, let's say?
With what hand can partner bid more than 5 / 5?
Nov. 17, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Nov. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMO North's hand is somewhere between bidding 5 and 6, but South should bid 6 on 5. I don't think that South should (can be obliged to) bid the grand on 6 without knowing anything for sure.
Nov. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Daniel, a solution: play until one suit remained, then claim, perhaps they can understand :)
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Anyway, I usually don't show my cards when declarer claims and let him/her continue playing (or ask about his plan) if I have doubts (just like on BBO). I think, it's fair enough.
Nov. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you don't have a system, it's better than a direct jump to 7NT.
Nov. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another story from the same week: opponents bid a grand slam against us. I lead a trump, declarer almost claimed, but changed his mind (counted his tricks probably) and was thinking a bit. Then quickly made the grand playing a dummy reverse!
Nov. 4, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Nov. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I learned about the hand last week from a member of the defenders' team and frankly, could not tell her anything surely.

I've never been a director, thus don't know too much about the rules, but this time read the laws (at least its relevant sections).

70D says:
___________

1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal* line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational.

2. The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. “from the top down”) in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this Law).

* For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, “normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.

___________

This point 2 is interesting. My favourite author is Victor Mollo and in his books this theme appears multiple times (Secretary Bird is always involved), and in every case claimer was required to play top-down.
The Hungarian Federation (of course) have not specified any order. Had it done so, that would have meant an automatic make.

Otherwise let's imagine a not-so-expert declarer who heard something about probabilities. Let's say he knows that a 3-3 break is about 35% and a finesse is 50% (and he's not so smart, that he knows that Jx is one third of the 4-2s, which is another 16%). Is finessing the spade 10 a careless play or insane in his case?
(well, this particular declarer was better than that, but not a top expert)

Another interesting question: how smart can you be after claiming, when you just miscounted your top tricks.
Nov. 4, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Nov. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. Initiate.

Open light and act agressively as opener, respond (go to game as responder) conservatively. It's harder to bid in defence.
I like the concept of weak openings system (they open the most frequent (8-12 HCP) hands) . Unfortunately they were too good to let them play, however nowadays most expert opens flat 11 counts and most 10s with some shape.


2. Intervene at first possible opportunity

Don't wait, usually it won't be any better later, only much more dangerous.


3. The player with the shape should bid.

I.e. you should intervene rather with shapely weaker hands than with balanced strong ones. With flat hands you can defend.


4. Don't let them play on level 2 in a known fit.

Corollary of LTT, see OBAR BIDS by Bergen.


5. Knowing partner's shortness helps you much.

Play splinters, short suit trials, etc. If you want more, play a (limited) relay system. When in doubt show your shortness instead of asking the balanced hand's shape.


6. Play as many limited bids as you can.

Your side will know what your aim is (game, slam, etc) if you limit your hand quickly, and don't mess around superfluously (as in 2/1).


7. Your system design should take declarership into consideration.

Try to make the stronger, unknown hand declarer. An example: play transfer responses when reponding to a strong club opening, and declare with master (asker) hand as often as possible. It will be much harder for the defence if they see the hand that they already know from the bidding.

8. Bid bravely with fit and cautiously with misfit.


9. support with support

Well known but worth emphasizing: support your partner's suit at first possible opportunity, don't fancy around. It makes your life much easier. Still, too often violated.

______

+1: Don't play cuebids (I mean control bids)
Not completely a joke, but not quite serious either.

They are mostly useless. They help the opponents more than your side. You are not smart enough to use them effectively anyway. Their only advantage is that they can be psyched. You would do much better by bidding you shortness instead of cuebidding. Exception: when the opponents showed a suit.
Nov. 2, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Nov. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The hungarian system in brief:

- you never lose masterpoints only earn them (thus more active players can make more masterpoints, this is intentional to encourage participation)
- the decrease in an event is exponential with 0.8 multiplier at pairs and a 0.6 multiplier at teams, i. e. if the winner pair gets 100 then the 2nd placed gets 80, the 3rd gets 64, etc. About half of the field can win masterpoints.
- the amount is influenced by many factors: number of participants, historical field strength (should be changed to actual strength), number of rounds, other circumstances.

The earned masterpoints are summarized in 3 different ways:

1. points in a year
http://www.elias.hu/php/mp/mp_eves.php?ev=2014

2. simple sum of all your points in your lifetime. Used for giving titles:
100 000: super grandmaster
40 000: grandmaster
20 000: master
5 000: 1st class
2 500: 2nd class
1 000: 3rd class

http://www.elias.hu/php/mp/mp_orok.php?ev=2014

3. weighted sum of last 5 years (100-100-75-50-25% weights). This one aims at representing the actual playing strength and used for seeding and excluding experienced players from amateaur events.

http://www.elias.hu/php/mp/mp_elo.php?ev=2014
Nov. 2, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Nov. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marc, if you have enough memory not to mix up, then it's quite clear to play strong club when they are vulnerable and standard when not, because the strong club opening itself can be effectively (and cheaply) disturbed in NV.

If you aim theoretical perfection, you can mix both systems with weak or mini notrump when you are non-vulnerable and strong NT in vulnerable :-)
Oct. 29, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Oct. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, how about taking your king from AT(x) and then score the ten too? :)
Oct. 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1N then 3 (or 2N if I really want to hide my heart support, but with this hand not really).

I don't think it's a gameforcing hand (at least facing my own opening bids :) )
Sept. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Standing applause for those who play clean game.
Sept. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cheating and especially intentional cheating are not always clear.

How do you judge these ones?

1. (this happens against me (and others) quite often):
Opening leader leads an ace, declarer thinks a normal (first trick) amount, third hand follows suit in tempo. Opening leader continues with the king, dummy follows suit and now third hand follows suit after a good amount of thinking. Two thing is clear: (s)he will not ruff the third round and (s)he is signalling something.

2. (not so frequent, but happens from time to time):
Thinking with a singleton.

2a.
This one happened in Pula a week ago: against 1NT partner led a high one from AKxx, xx appeared on dummy. I encouraged from JTxxx, declarer played a small one. Partner continued with a small card (OK, bad play), declarer scored his Qx, but this took 5 seconds for him. Is it a wonder, that partner blocked the suit later? Anyway, it did not matter at the end. I asked him what it took so long. He was just surprised to win the second trick, he did not even notice his thinking. I tend to believe that it was not intentional.

Another one from Pula:
2b.

http://www.pzbs.pl/wyniki/turnieje/2015/pula/pairs/op012.html
The bidding went (Pass)-1-(3)-3NT.
Club lead, taken in dummy, small heart from ATxxxx. Now it took so long to play his singleton heart for the opponent (K Dziekanski, Poland), that I actually thought he was thinking on what to discard. I played for the drop, but did not even bother calling the director, I was simply stupid not to take the finesse after this show, I am an adult or what.
Anyway, it may happen that he just did not find that card, and who would doubt that?

Which oppenent's hand should have been cut?
Sept. 19, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Sept. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1. I'd've bid 4 with the 6-4, perhaps might have doubled 3 with the other one, but passing twice seems normal

2. I guess a spade. Not because it looks great.

3. I like this one, I think it's a great bid (seriously). 1N with the 4333 is acceptable (I always teach to subtract a point with 4333). If 2N promises HHx and 4 a good 4+ card fit (what else)

4. this one looks absurd to me

5. 3 is normal enough if you play Lebennsohl. Partner may compete for the partscore with a shapely hand. But passing? Do they play Equal Level Conversion? If they do then passing 3 is strange.

6. 2 by me. I prefer leading from queens to kings and don't find leading from xxxx effective (Txxx is slightly worse).

7. 9 :) I would have taken the second trick I suppose. These guys don't know each other's hand well enough or don't have enough fantasy :)

8. I prefer not leading anything at all.

9. no idea, abstain. I usually choose a lead against slams that gives declarer the best chance.

10. this one is absolutely crazy. Wasn't it white vs red?
Aug. 28, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Aug. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The actual deal was this one: http://www.bridzs.hu/result/1558/125/15tat3-12.htm

Double dummy I was right passing the double, but not in real life.
Thus all the voters are right in a way so far :-)
Aug. 27, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment Aug. 27, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another possibility (without any lying):

Let's say the auction went as you described:
1 - 1
3 - 3N (denies 5-card majors)

Opener can see 10 tricks in his own hand (with a bit of optimism). Thus he can almost safely bid 4 or 4N on responder's 3N, as reponder denied majors, and very likely has a balanced hand (probably with some stoppers) as he chose to declare NT with the weak hand versus the strong one.
Now the 6 HCP hand can accept the invitation.
July 14, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment July 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One thing is sure: the opponents had some luck.

However the strong clubbers should have solved it too. I think that South should have bid 4N instead of 3. Partner has at least good 9 tricks or 23 HCP, so 4N can't be a problem. Now opener can bid 6N (about 68% on spade lead, much better on any other) or 5N (pick a slam) if worried about spades.

I hope 3 denied majors. It should. We play transfers from responder on it.

Another possibility is to bid a natural (4+ suit, may be Canapé) and forcing 1 with the North hand and learn something about the South hand. Now: 1 - 1 - 1 - 3 (balanced, 4+ , 6-7 total points) - 6 (offer to play).
Responder can pass it as North could have asked RKC if he had had a real suit.
July 13, 2015
Csaba Czimer edited this comment July 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree. Was it actually made at the table?
July 7, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's South and a bit of bad luck (from the possible votes 100% South).

My #1 rule in bidding: don't bid slam against their 1-level opening (unless it is totally sure). It was clearly violated here by South.
North's double is clear-cut for me. 2 is not forcing to game, thus I agree with Frances that 3N would be absurd (at least for the purpose described in the poll).

5 would have been enough (and necessary as 5 makes). 5N is (much) better than 6. 6 may be better too.
July 5, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top