Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eric Hamilton
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, 2018
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, 2018
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, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“other”: whatever partner thinks it means if you haven't discussed it.
June 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> To everyone voting for “King of diamonds is a penalty card,” what would your ruling be if East's lead out of turn had been the two of diamonds?
Yes. Why not? It's still a lead out of turn, not accepted.

> Should South really get to score his six of diamonds now?
If the lead out of turn had been the deuce instead of the king, West wouldn't have led a losing diamond unless compelled to do so (by normal application of lead penalties and with no better diamond to lead) so this situation is unlikely to arise. But if it does….

Is the diamond five a penalty card? It was exposed when (because play was supposed to have stopped when South didn't accept the lead) not legally played. Major or minor penalty card?

South is entitled to the benefit, if any, of the initial lead out of turn. He is not entitled to any benefit from his egregious “ruling” at the table. If normal application of the exposed card rules works out to South's gaining any advantage over what would happen if the director had been called immediately, I'd be trying to find a procedural penalty to negate the ill-gotten benefit,

East/West are not blameless either; need to be reminded that the appropriate response to an at-the-table ruling is not a discussion, but a director call.
May 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What was the rationale for 4D instead of 3S as South's second call?
May 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It makes a big difference whether the participants know that the match is tied at the crucial moment.
May 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If E/W were vulnerable, this would be an ATB problem. But not vul? Meh.
May 28, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> There is a lot more downside than upside to not opening 1NT

That I'll buy, but note that it's an argument for backing your judgment rather than following the field…. The downside of opening 1D is there whether the field is opening 1D or 1N.

> Think of it this way, probably 90% or more of players in a club pick up these cards and turn off their brain and open 1NT because that's the normal action.
We'd think so, wouldn't we? I was a bit surprised to find a 3:1 split with the majority going for the diamond opener when this hand was played.
May 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But should you expect essentially everyone else in the room to open 1NT? The voting here is running much pretty much 50/50, leaving you with no field protection for either choice.
May 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Doug's comment reminds me of something I was wondering when I read the other posts about simulations in this thread.

When we simulate for whether 3N makes when that's what the other hand is going to bid, we're answering the question “How good is this hand if we're going to be in NT?”. That's not quite the same question as “How good is this hand?” - it's not a foregone conclusion that we will end up in NT.

But I'm not sure how to formulate the latter question in simulatable form. Perhaps if we tried the hand in question against a large number of random other hands, and looked at how often any game made? Or the mean/median number of tricks taken in the best strain?
May 21, 2018
Eric Hamilton edited this comment May 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand showed up in a club game a few weeks ago: QJ3,QJ5,Q986,AQJ, second seat, no vulnerability.

It's polled at https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-nx0bk6alma/
May 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Woolsey count (add .5 for each ace, subtract .25 for each quack) counts these hands as 18.25, 17.5, 17.25, 16.5 respectively from the top. That's before making whatever adjustments you like for 4333 being generally worse than 4432.

The evaluation is blurred a bit by the quackletons in the first three examples, No one is ever going to say that QJ is a good holding, but it has more variance than just about any other holding. Worst case, a quackleton is completely worthless, best case it's worth appreciably more than QJx, and you don't know which case you have when (as here) you're evaluating a hand for a no trump opening.
May 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2Cxx is indeed epic….

Fireman/Lall also featured an epic push when both tables voluntarily bid to 6D in an uncontested auction off two cashing aces (board 14 of the third segment).

And Kranyak was facing a 30-IMP swing when he had to decide whether to play 7S (cold if the spades are not 5-0) or 7NT (requires partner to hold the club jack or diamond queen and more than two).
May 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What was the state of the match?
May 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> they made 3♥ at the table as did one other E/W
In that case my “other” answer would be “+140”
May 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Apparently I should protect myself by asking about their bidding before my double.
Which of course creates its own problems…. Asking and not doubling locates a diamond honor for declarer and generates UI for partner.

These problems are not completely absent under the old procedure, but they are less serious. Asking after an alert may be somewhat reflexive, whereas asking over an unalerted bid in a live auction just about has to be a considered action.
May 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If 2H made at the table, why is the poll option to give E/W +140?
May 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On a frequency of occurrence basis, “not a big deal either way” is quite plausible.

It's worth noting that precision-style 2C openings are fairly effective and come up a lot more often than the standard 2C GF monster…. although of course Precision still has a forcing opening for the latter.
May 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South's opening bid is polled at https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-u5axg0knrf/

As of right now, it's pretty evenly split between 1D, 3D, and 3NT.
May 5, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top