Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whether I would/ would not use Stayman with a different hand distribution is irrelevant. What my partner knows about my hand because I would have used Stayman with another type of hand is also irrelevant. What IS relevant is the purpose of my call - to ask partner to bid a four card major if they have one. Whether they bid 2NT, 3C, 3D if they don't have one is also irrelevant.

If my side gets a good score because my partner is able to use the additional information that I DID originally bid Stayman then we can adjust under 23C.
Nov. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A. Definition
A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if it:
1. has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call, or
2. defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, or
3. has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn
call.

Both Stayman AND a double are asking partner to bid a four-card major and presumably are therefore both ‘asking bids/ calls’ and thus appear to be comparable. That being so we don't need 1. or 2.
Nov. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hmm - can't you argue - “same purpose” i.e. to get partner to bid a 4 card major? If so then strength isn't a factor.
Nov. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don't get me going about doubles of NT bids being ‘takeout of clubs’ again … please.
Nov. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 21B1 would be re-written roughly to

1. (a) Until the end of the auction period (see Law 17D) and provided that his partner has not subsequently made a bid, or an artificial pass, a player may change their last call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent. Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed
misinformation.
Nov. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am coming to that conclusion as well. However North East were advised of their right to appeal and eschewed it.
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the OP thought he had a 4=2=3=4 hand and it was only on checking after the end of the auction that he found he had two spade suits.
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A key difference between MI and UI polls is that (in this case) the damaged party is a NOS and so we can look at all the possibilities - we don't have to discriminate between logical alternatives i.e. Even if the pass is demonstrably suggested by the auction and polling, we can still (should we wish) allow the other options.

(I will advise this ruling was given against my County team)
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No.

In fact the pollees were either for doubling both or passing both.

So I decided that the player (given their at-table statememt) might have doubled 1/3 of the time and added on 20% (1/3 + 1/15 = 2/5)
Nov. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The specific questions asked were:

South opens 3 and West passes. What call would you make?

(pretty well everyone said 3NT - only one TD polled said 5 - and that went for 500)

Suppose East doubles and it is alerted as being for takeout of clubs - West bids 4. What call would you make?

Suppose 3NT is doubled for penalties and West bids 4. What call would you make.

Would you be more inclined to double on the first or the second scenario?

The final ruling was 40% for 4X-2 and 60% for 4-2 - on the assumption that play would be the same. Consideration was given to the fact that North had said they would double before the hand was played, despite the polling, that I was not sure I had polled players of the same ability of North and a sympathetic weighting in favour of the NOS applied. My (yes it was me) initial thought was a lower value of 25%.
Nov. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The only problem with that (and presumably why both players aren't given the option) is that if the other player is given the choice to take back their bid as well then they know what their partner would have done (with the incorrect information). Maybe that swings the pendulum too much the other way.

In this case, of course, North was asked their opinion before the play of the hand; however, as you say, they can make a cost-nothing declaration.

The other side will also be able to change their call (based on the other person's amended call) although as things stand they would not be able to make use of the two cancelled calls (Law 16C). (In some situations of course there may be UI as well however according to the OP in this case there wasn't).
Nov. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I was directing and the auction was over then I would ask (away from the table) since IMHO once the result is known of the hand then the player knows what the ‘best’ action would be. I think it would be better to find out what a player would do in the situation before they know what the result of their options is going to be. This IMHO makes any comments such as “I would have doubled” or “I would have bid 4” less self-serving. Although in this case the consensus seem to be that the statement by North is self-serving enough.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The board is found at https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/results-data/2019/tollemache-qualifier/TolleB1.txt It is board 39. Note that the Board appears twice.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Before the opening lead was made, I gather. I also understand that North thought they had 18 high card points! (Though I would be interested how that should be polled!)
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Who is showing the balanced hand? In my auction the partner of the doubler is showing a balanced hand. In your auction the partner of the 1NT bidder is showing the balanced hand. (OK he could double the 1NT bidder to also show a balanced hand - and then the doubler could redouble to also show a balanced hand commensurate with the TOD.)
Nov. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 - X - 1 (I have a balanced hand) - 1NT - I also have a balanced hand. Doesn't seem like the best plan, does it? By reducing the bidding level you not only help your partner you help your opponents - and there are two of them!
Nov. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“slimeball opponents can manipulate the situation to try and make sure that it does. ”

Law 10C

“3. When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select the most advantageous action.”
Nov. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A similar deal appears in one of Victor Mollo's Menagerie Books - I think it costs Papa a case of magnum vintage Champagne.
Nov. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But it defines how things can be the same.

An orange and an apple are similar.
A Granny Smith is a subset of an apple.
A letter and an e-mail have the same purpose.

All are comparable.
Nov. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
KXX QXX AJXX QXX is a bog standard weak no trump bid in England - so I would open it. I would also open XX AKXXX XXX AXX since I have a safe rebid. Now AXX XXXX KXX AXX is a different kettle of fish. I would like to open it, but would need some Ts and 9s before 1NT.

One way I look at it is: potential trick-taking/ assisting cards. KXX QXX AJXX QXX has 5 (with the Jack) XX AKXXX XXX AXX also has 5. AXX XXXX KXX AXX only has three. Note that the word isn't ‘clear cut’ or ‘likely’ or ‘playing tricks’ but ‘potential’. Yes you need help from partner (and vice versa) but you need straw before you can make bricks.
Nov. 5
.

Bottom Home Top