Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Joe Hertz
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And you also do NOT know partner intended 3 as Stayman. You know that Partner would have intended it as Stayman if partner hadnt realized their error yet. For all you know partner has woken up already.

You cannot read partner's mind. You however are obligated to fully disclose your agreements. If P is wrong and then you explain your P's bids in a manner contrary to your agreements, you deserve whatever procedural penalties you accrue.
Feb. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Goodness look at what I started!

Since I offered a counter example that started it, let me try again with a COUNTER COUNTER example.

Say you watch the opps have this unalerted no announcement auction

1N-2-2-2N-?

Would you dare ask what 2 was? I hope not, because if opp goes, “OMG! It's a transfer!” and bids 3 or 4 next, it's your own fault for waking them.

And if that's your fault, in the first example, when you know RHO has missed the fact 2NT was an overcall, WHY would you ask anything else??? Yes they are supposed to ignore UI, but they are also supposed to know their agreements. If the answer wakes them up, it's a problem, but if you ask them a question and that wakes the person you asked up regardless of what the answer is, you've helped them, and it's only your fault.

FWIW, the 2NT overcall/opener problem occurred to me when I was starting out, and I thought I had to say “Partner intends it as Stayman” to avoid waking P up. A TD corrected me.
Feb. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But that's besides the point. You make the call on the non UI basis, not the wake up call basis.

An extreme example is if RHO opened 1 and you overcalled an unusual 2NT only to have P explain it as 20-21. P then bids 3. You know it's intended as Stayman. You know you can't bid like it's stayman. But would you never explain it as Stayman to avoid waking p up.
Feb. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sounds like the tail has been wagging the dog for a very long time. ACBLScore has become the arbiter of MP awards, even if it's not been doing what was intended.

Or maybe it was what was intended but the documentation never got updated to reflect that even as the code changed.

That's the hell of writing software to automate a labor intensive job – it really makes the people who will use it think about their procedures in ways they often have not. It's a good exercise for them to go through, but very often quite humbling.

JOC, where are the MP awards determined in the process for a club that doesn't use any software?
Jan. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Note to self: Buy more Old Speckled Hen for Chris. I will likely need it.
Jan. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I actually had a problem with trying to benefit the C players even when I was a NLM, but for different reasons.

At some point before I made NLM, I noticed our districts STaC games made the range for the C strat to be NLM or less (when NLM was 300). Before then it was 500. I suspect it is 500 now again.

The problem with a <300 C strat was that most of our clubs were holding their STaC game opposite a NLM only section. The result was that hardly anyone wound up playing in the STaC's C strat. I remember quite vividly coming in first N/S one night, and getting as many MP's for that as the 2nd place overall pair did in the 10 table NLM game. The overall we got for whatever in the STaC's C strat was less, and so didn't get applied. I wondered why they even bothered. A 0-500 strat at least might have got me something by virtue of actually having a population.
Jan. 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think what bothers me the most here is that East actually *intended* it as a NMF and didn't say so before the opening lead.

E/W's argument is that they feel they didn't have an agreement but that they both knew what the bid meant anyway. If you feel comfortable enough to make a conventional bid, thinking your partner will know it, that's close enough to an agreement that I think you owe the opps an explanation.

The real question I'd love to ask east is, “So why didnt you bid 3?”
Jan. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This might need a follow up poll. With most of my regular partnerships, it's Walsh 2/1. If I had my druthers though, I'd play Fantunes. I'm glad I got to see on this poll who else plays it :-)
Jan. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If XX implies no fit, and also means that we have to outbid them or penalize them (with all subsequent X's are for penalty), then 3 simply has to be forcing, since 2 meets all of the requirements of the XX bid – there's just no other way to interpret it. There's no other purpose it can serve.
Jan. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have on occasion (knowing we were a little behind the clock) claimed with the statement, “I can take the remaining tricks. Would you like to hear how or can we move on?”.

Yeah, it's a badly worded claim and the director has no choice, but if they were novices I'd really want to give them a break. Declarer clearly was aware that the Q was good and no rational line of play could screw the ability to cash it.

There is never a downside to stating an affirmative line of play. I've claimed forgetting about an outstanding baby trump, but my stated line of play was such that the opponents would not be able to cash it before I wound up in my trump tight hand, and entitled to the presumption that I'd be playing them from the top.

Realistically, any claim should be one that you can just put your cards down in the order you will play them. If you cannot do that, don't try it.
Jan. 20, 2015
Joe Hertz edited this comment Jan. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Concur with Yuan here.

I play 1m-2m as Limit+ and 1m-3m as totally drop dead.

1-3 and 1-2 is a constructive raise of partner's minor. 5-9 or so. Usually it gets corrected to 3m but when partner started with a balanced 18-19, 3NT is usually golden.

In this case, 2NT might be the place to play. Partner should be well placed to decide.
Jan. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In all fairness to Lopo, ACBLScore is written in Borland's Turbo Pascal. If there's a TP analog to Java's JUnit Unit Testing Framework, I've never heard of it.

ACBLScore evolved as it needed features, and I dont think it was first coded with the end goal being the thing it is today. This is why the ACBL Wanted to rewrite the thing.

And say whatever the ACBL wants to about the “Personal Webserver” concept being unworkable (another cough rant cough of mine), Rails has a truly wonderful testing framework. Properly written, you push a button, go have coffee or lunch, and come back to see what you broke.
Jan. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wouldn't go that far. Testing code is like proofreading text: It's awfully hard to do it right after you wrote it. Anything bad you thought might happen, you wrote it to handle. This conversely means that anything it cannot handle must be something you didn't think of actually happening.

Coming up stuff you hadn't thought to consider is one really hard piece of mental gymnastics, let me tell you.
Jan. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I did know that A from AK isn't standard. That's why I said “A from Ax”. It's just a form of high/low from doubletons, which *is* standard. As to the AK question, the CC is officially agnostic as to what lead to make from that vs suits. I just didn't want to have someone think I went out of my way to mislead them, and wanted to be as nonchalant about it as I could, because I didn't want to act like I was going out of my way to steer them in any direction whatsoever.

It's like someone having a two way finesse. You can't play slow on purpose to make them think you have the card in question when you don't, but it's perfectly legitimate (and even encouraged) to play the card you do choose in as practiced and measured of a tempo as you can, just like any other card you might play, so as to give away no clue whatsoever in any direction.

For that reason, I did consider giving them the convention card, but I thought even that was sufficiently unusual as a response to that particular question that it might have drawn attention to something being up.
Jan. 6, 2015
Joe Hertz edited this comment Jan. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Funny how people forget about the penalty double, but can't explain why the last 4 or 6 bids on the auction were passes.
Jan. 6, 2015
Joe Hertz edited this comment Jan. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because of my hearing loss, I will get scores wrong at first. So I try to avoid using the bridgemate, I generally sit south, but when I sit E/W, I always choose east. I find the majority of Norths will hand it to West because people are right-handed.

When I am north though, I put it in the center of the table if the opps were defending.
Jan. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
+1 for Kit here.

I always answer in complete sentences “Our agreement is that it is natural” to make sure opp knows he's only getting what the rules require. He needs to be on notice he might get fixed at any time.

Against two exceptionally good opps, in a suit contract, my partner lead an Ace. I'm holding the King. Declarer asks me what our leads are.

Seeing the loaded artillery shell headed straight for me, I simply said, “4th best, standard otherwise”.

Only when declarer followed up with “Ace from AK?” I said yes. I wasn't going to answer that question until I was asked it specifically. Yes, I could have said it before, but I didn't want to give the impression I was trying to mess with the opps on purpose.

Opp's partner thought I should have said, “Ace from AK or from a doubleton”. I've never heard anyone go out of their way to explicitly say “High-Low from doubletons”. I judged that if I actually had said that, then I'd be effectively telling him the position of the King.

My response was “that A from Ax was addressed by ‘standard’”. They're entitled to be told our agreements. That shouldn't be twisted into a method of making us tell you who has the King and/or the distribution of the suit lead, even if ironically, by asking that, he tells my partner I have the King.
Jan. 5, 2015
Joe Hertz edited this comment Jan. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, and that time I should have known since I was really happen to see the person in question too since he had been out of circulation for a while (it's what prompted me posting this).

Realistically though, everyone is right – the answer is for me to get better about it. If I can handle this better, lots of other things about bridge get easier too, so I shouldn't look at this as something to be avoided.
Jan. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
+1 to this sentiment. Reading the casebooks is the only real way, short of becoming a director, one has a chance to actually learn how the the laws governing the game work in practice.

Short of running afoul of them anyway.
Jan. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's essentially what I try to do about all distractions. Most actually are easier for me to block out because of the hearing problem.

In this case, I'm being asked to concentrate on something that isn't what my partner said, just when we're most likely to want to have a conversation.

Jan. 2, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top