Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Henrik Johansson
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 36 37 38 39
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For once I have suitable methods. Over 4NT quantitative, pass is of course minimum, with maximum you bid some slam but what to do when you have some sort of extras but not a maximum? You show your number of aces and if you do and partner bids 5NT that is mandatory sign-off.
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In claim cases weighted scores is absolutely forbidden.
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A sequence of calls (lebensohl and then cuebid-stayman) can never be a comparable call. The first call itself must be comparable.

I don't know how many times I've been having this discussion. The law (23A2) does not care about a subset of hands. The law only cares about subsets to the attributable meaning of the withdrawn call.

So what are the attributable meanings to stayman? Well of course that somewhat depends on agreements but I would say there are none. Stayman asks, it does not show anything special. With that interpretation both 23A1 and 23A2 is impossible to apply so we are left with 23A3. That means that the only call comparable to 2 stayman is some other call that also asks for majors (a call showing the majors is not the same thing as a call that asks for majors). I'm not saying I'm right in this interpretation, but it makes my life as a TD more easy. It will take about 15 seconds to sort out if there is a comparable call or not. The other option is of course that since stayman does not show anything any call is comparable, but that is not the purpose of the law. 23A3 is there for a reason.
Nov. 25
Henrik Johansson edited this comment Nov. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Then he will ask what will call a show now, and call b, and call c and so on for every call the player might want to make. The player is entitled to know if his next call will bar his partner or not and it's the TD's job to make sure the player knows that.
Nov. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One could argue that since stayman shows at least 0 points and at least 0 cards in each suit, all calls are a subset.
Nov. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not at all, the TD takes the player away from the table, asks what he intended to show by his call, asks what calls the players thinks are comparable in there methods and the TD will either agree it's comparable or not. So when the player returns to the table he will know what calls will bar his partner or not. This has also been done for 12 years so every TD should be familiar with this procedure.
Nov. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Then they are doing it wrong. The players must know what effects his choice will have before he makes it.
Nov. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No the TD will tell the player who made the IB wich calls are comparable before the player makes his choice.
Nov. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The comparable call concept has been around for 12 years now. Amazing it worked for the first 10 years and then became nonsense.
Nov. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the call has the same purpose, strength and shape is irrelevant.
Nov. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So you should first be allowed to see your partners action and then make up your mind?
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As soon as you make something UI the chances of having a normal result is very small. We want a minimum of UI rulings, not a UI ruling after every infraction because they will in many cases be impossible to solve. If you rewind 3 bidding rounds you will have to make about 12 polls to come up with a ruling.

The most difficult ruling you can have in bridge is a Major penalty card. If you understand why, you understand why UI must be avoided as far as possible.
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So, a player has xxx xxx xxx xxxx. His RHO opens 1NT and his LHO bids 3NT, all pass. The result is one down. 1NT was weak and thus alertable. The player claims he would have doubled 3NT if 1NT was alerted and since we are supposed to believe the player we have to adjust to 3NT X… Seems fair. Very easy.
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, You ask the player what he tried to show (why he made the call he made), that is the attributable meanings to the IB. Exactly the same way we have been doing since 2007, no change at all.

If we think the IB might be made on purpose we just apply 72C.
Nov. 20
Henrik Johansson edited this comment Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Beacuse UI might make reaching a normal contract played by 75% of the field illegal.
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes we do, if we judge there is no way they would end up in 2NT at all. But remember that we do not say they have to bid 2NT, we check if they would end up there if they could bid whatever they wanted.
Nov. 19
Henrik Johansson edited this comment Nov. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If both 1NT and 2NT are the way to show balanced hands they specify the same denomination so it doesn't matter if the are comparable or not. The may be mutually exclusive, the bidding still continues and all information is AI.
Nov. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Except it created ridiculous results instead of normal results. But yes it was easy to apply. So was every revoke is a 3 trick penalty.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That was 1997 laws, we stopped using them 12 years ago.
Nov. 18
Henrik Johansson edited this comment Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually 27B1(a) is where the major change is… 27B1(b) is just a very small change from the 2007 laws
Nov. 18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 36 37 38 39
.

Bottom Home Top