Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eric Hamilton
1 2 3 4 5 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> This is not a question of UI. I am not telling partner anything he doesn't know.

Indeed… the regulation against unnecessary alerts (“what is not required is forbidden”?) is a concession to lower levels of play where there is a very real possibility that partner does not know. Whether it's a well-chosen or sensible concession there is an open question, but it clearly interferes with full disclosure in serious play.
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's an extra club ten in the second hypothetical layout on page 11.
July 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had been planning to stay out of this thread hijack because I didn't want to risk being known as the only grammar pedant in the crowd…but it appears that isn't something that I have to worry about….

OK, this particular case has nothing to do with gendered pronouns or the fact that English lacks an epicene third-person singular pronoun. Whether “his own…” or “their own…” is correct depends on whether we should be using a singular or a plural pronoun here; Ely Culbertson and Sidney Lenz are more than one person so the plural is correct.
July 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's not clear to me that copying a bridge hand should be considered plagiarism (although preserving “first reported by” information is generally a good thing). Copying any accompanying analysis clearly would be plagiarism, but that's text and Google is up for finding that.
July 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Polls with poorly constructed choices” is a different and IMO more serious issue than the “or used to…” stuff.
July 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Often an “are there better methods available?” question presents as an ATB question - this may be one of those times.
July 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, their blood vessels are their problem not mine, but it is just sooooo disruptive to the game when the paramedics get involved….. :)

You are, of course, right about the superiority in principle of “not discussed” over “not consistent….”
In practice, though, by the time the discussion has reached this point everyone at the table is already aware that the auction is inconsistent, and “our agreement says 10 to a bad 14” has already passed all the UI that's going to be passed. So I'll probably go for whichever one I judge most likely to soothe the opponents.
July 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“our agreement says 10 to bad 14, but given his 3nt bid, it is strong with stoppers in both the bid suits..”
Rules-wise, you must stop talking at the first comma - everything past that commmunicates unauthorized information to partner (not only how you are interpreting their bid but also that you have a hand that allows you to come to this particular conclusion) and potential misinformation to opponents (if you have guessed wrong). That's why not only is there no obligation to notify opponents of partner's misbid, it's obligatory not to do so. (Partner's mistaken explanation of your calls is a different matter - the laws cover when and how to correct that misinformation).

The opponent's demeanor, increasing redness of face, and tone of voice as they ask follow up questions may suggest that there is a real danger that they will blow a blood vessel and expire at the table if you refuse to provide them with a more satisfactory (to them) explanation. In this case you might try appending the soothing phrase “…. but this is not consistent with the subsequent development of the auction” or “…. we have not discussed this continuation” to your explanation.
July 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As other posters above have already pointed, out there is too little information to assign blame:
Does the partnership pattern out minimum hands or does the 3D call suggest extras? Depending on the answers, either or both of 3D by north or 4D by south could be wrong.

But I'd bet that what's really going on is that the partnership does not have clear agreements about some or all of these questions and is jumping to “Who to blame?” when they should be asking how their communication can be improved.
July 8
Eric Hamilton edited this comment July 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It would be interesting to know what the other results were. If -450 is a bad result because there were a bunch of -420 results, that's a different conversation than if there were a bunch of +50 results, partials making or down one or two, and -170 results.
July 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> North should rebid 2C not 3H
I am reminded of something I once heard: “I would rather that my partner hears about nine of my cards than six”.
June 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> I'm just spitballing this idea, but: what if we completely eliminated the concept of “deviations” as an acceptable behavior?

It would lead to a different style of defining and explaining bids. For example..

In a regular Precision partnership, after 1C-1H, the 1H bid might be explained as “unlimited, presumed to be five or more hearts, values to force to game except in the unlikely event that a catastrophic misfit emerges” instead of the “8+ HCP, 5+ hearts, game force” that we hear today. The former explanation is arguably more accurate unless the 1H bidder is a total walrus and allows for the “just bridge” deviations that a competent player might make.

Or consider whether anyone would ever commit to a specific point count such that 1M-2M is always less than that number and a limit raise is always more? I expect that instead limit raises would come to be “Hand unsuitable for exploring alternative strains and strong enough to be in a game if opener is about one trick better than minimum”.

Getting beginner and intermediate players to think in these terms would probably be a good thing.
But procedurally….. I'm not sure I'd want to be seeing this in action at my local club on a night when there's a full moon…..
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> What makes you think that East “fell savagely” on the trick?
I don't. That bit is in response to Nikos Stamatiou's suggestion that that might have been what happened, and I'm pointing out that it doesn't matter.
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> It doesn't matter how long it takes Declarer to notice what Dummy has done provided both sides have not played to trick 13.
That does indeed seem to be pretty clearly what 45D1 says…. but in the original post it also says that the director was not called until after the play of the hand was complete, suggesting that declarer did play to trick 13.
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I read 45D1 (“until each side has played to the next trick”), declarer can correct and the play can be rolled back unless declarer had already played to trick 13, so east has no particular incentive to fall savagely on the trick before declarer has a chance to correct dummy's misplay.

However, in this case the director “was called to the table after the play of the hand”, so it sounds as if it is too late and the play to tricks 12 and 13 stands, without any need to adjudicate the UI question.
June 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> He head me the first time, right?
Yes, but she also knows what my minimum white-on-red matchpoints takeout double looks like :)
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not a bad habit, but rather a good one that should be developed:

ON EVERY SINGLE HAND as soon as the dummy hits, add dummy's high card points to yours, subtract from 40. For each suit, add dummy's length to yours and subtract from 13. Then pause to consider what the auction and the lead tells you about how the missing stuff is distributed among the two unseen hands.
June 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In Denmark/Italy there was a Lightner double of 6H, which would have led to a disappointing outcome - giving up 230 points to stop a 30-point overtrick - if EW hadn't run to 6S.

But that raises a question. Assuming the diamond control situation (first-round or second) were clear… Does the double place the spade king with enough confidence to bid the spade grand?
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would an opening 2S have fared so much better? As with the hand that started this thread, I'm thinking this isn't about big numbers from multi, it's about big numbers occasionally happening to aggressive first-seat preempts.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What was east's hand that made the diamond lead attractive?
June 11
1 2 3 4 5 6
.

Bottom Home Top