Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eric Hamilton
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not a director. I have mentored in mentor/mentee partnerships, even before my unit established a formal M/M program some years ago.

In this case east, ostensibly the weakest player at the table, is an ex-mentee and that can change the dynamics for the better. I have always made a point of giving my mentees a pep talk about director calls: “It's not like the traffic cop flashing blue lights at you and pulling you over to give a fine and court summons or charge you with a crime…. It's more like when you call the cops because a traffic light is malfunctioning - that's an irregularity…. something's gone wrong at our table so we can't just play normally…. might be an accident, might be their fault, might be our fault, might be nobody's fault, but in any case we'll call the director and let them straighten it out and get to whatever result the rules say should happen. That's why the card says ‘if there’s an irregularity call the director'….. and we really really should not be making our own rulings at the table because that's the director's job.” (This talk is intended to make them less rattled when the opponents call the director, and also more comfortable about calling the director themselves when it is appropriate).

So if I find myself in this situation with my ex-mentee sitting to my right, I'll cheerfully call the director as soon it is clear that we have a UI problem (depending on table action, when LHO inappropriately announces the splinter, RHO emerges with 5D after the tank, or LHO raises). Then I can turn to RHO, say “Hey, remember what I said about director calls? I don't think that partner should be telling you he's taking your bid as a splinter, might be a problem here, let's let the director straighten it out”; when the director shows up I can explain the inappropriate announcement, say that there may be UI problems, see where the bidding and rulings go from there.

If one of my ex-mentees were to be seriously rattled because I had called the director when playing against them I'd be disappointed - with myself.
Dec. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To quote a strong player of my acquaintance: “I'd rather show partner nine of my cards than six”.
Nov. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> I think that bidding 6♥ over 4♥ in a casual partnership is wrong.

Just how casual are your casual partnerships? I play a fair amount of pick-up partnerships in weak fields, and there are many things that are more wrong than locking in a 75% result.
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Have you seen NS cards?
Do they matter? :)
The results merchants will, without pause for self-reflection, consider this to be a rhetorical question.

But even Hamlet might consider that the 4S bid puts enough pressure on EW that it can win even when it's theoretically unsound.
Nov. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm throwing a club on the first diamond and trying for six heart tricks… but is my RHO capable of ducking the first diamond with A8xxx or A9xxx?
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are better off because now you can bid out with 3H and partner can sensibly decide whether to move past 3N to a minor-suit game or slam. By contrast, if you bid 3H directly partner must give up on either 3N or minor-suit exploration.

The lopsided result of this poll suggests that not many people think this advantage outweighs the disadvantage of suppressing the three-suited shape and four-card heart suit (As Dave Beer points out below, expecting responder to show hearts over 2N is no panacea). I voted with the majority, and didn't think it's close.
Oct. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is a call that says “I'm not thrilled by your hearts and have nothing more than the opening bid I've already told you about”. 1NT is not that call.
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For what it's worth, DeepFinesse says that 2C is down two if the defense starts with a trump lead. Anything else does allow east to get out for down one.
Oct. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I want to check two options in the poll: “North should double 2C” and “Your system is bad”, so abstained.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Looking to collect a complete play record for every hand? I can see the value in that.
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It appears that North started with two spade deuces?
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The club bidder has good clubs and is aware of the risks… but is also betting on the likely distribution of missing clubs and cards between his partner and his LHO. 3C may be a good bet with positive expectation, but some days good bets don't come in. Partner's double says that this is one of those days.
Oct. 5
Eric Hamilton edited this comment Oct. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> You pick up a hand which you judge totally borderline, in terms of the percentages and risk reward of whether to settle for a part score or bid a game.

I had to abstain, because there is always SOMETHING that will tip the choice one way or another, even if it is nothing more than table feel. If a kibitzer asks me afterwards why I chose a particular action, my answer may be “Really really close, and I'm not surprised that it turned out wrong, but it was based on …..” and I'll have some words that complete the sentence.

For me the more important issue is not allowing the prolonged losing streak to affect my judgment.
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The 10 kinds of people are: those who don't understand ternary; those who understand ternary; and those who were expecting a joke about binary.
Oct. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree on general principles about providing the scoring.

However even at IMPs after giving serious consideration to the spade, I'm still leading the club. Partner is unlikely to have a quick enough entry to give us our ruff, and if they do have that entry it may be the setting trick already. After the club lead partner may come through with a slow winner, or we may score two club tricks.

Another possibility if you're willing to risk overtricks for a beat is a diamond hoping to give partner a ruff. As with the spade, that's something to consider and then reject.
Sept. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What would be a typical holding for north in this sequence?
Sept. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Presumably partner has some form of puppet available over 1N?
This one is close - the dubious club holding and poor heart spots incline me towards pessimism but I won't argue with a partner who goes the other way.
Aug. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> I still don't see Henry's option available
If you would always invite, never force, then check the four “invite not force” options.
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Try now, I think I fixed it.
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dammit! You're right, I didn't paste in enough options.
Aug. 28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.

Bottom Home Top