Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or similar, or have the same intent. However it looks as if my decision at the table was incorrect.
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it all depends on how ‘similar’ is ‘similar.’

1 = opening values and at least three clubs. No 5-card major
X = opening values and at least three clubs. 4 Card Spades.
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe not - but I did ask them.
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I might be persuaded that 3 (willing to play in 4 if that is partner's suit might be comparable in that it is similar to a 1 opening call (opening values + hearts). The only difference is that it probably only shows 4 hearts instead of 5 - but a 1 card difference is enough to make it similar.
Nov. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe East was wanting to go with you to the bar and get a double shot as well.

(As has been mentioned, the director has no power to prevent any call or play, just to adjudicate the results of said call or play if is an infraction.)
Nov. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can't tell the director (at the table)before the hand is played that you wouldn't have doubled had you known the correct information. That gives UI to partner.
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I mean it even has a club honour (optional but desired).
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well since the lead hadn't been faced the director could have given North their last call back - but that obviously isn't going to help.

The director's statement “There is no bridge reason to double in the first place” is manifestly incorrect.

As usual it is not what players have done with the wrong information, it is what they would do with the right information.

Even if double is inferior, making it is certainly not an extremely serious error unrelated to the infraction, nor is it a gambling action since at the time the player was unaware that an infraction had occurred (other than the incorrect announcement)
Nov. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It would appear that North's noticeable hesitation is showing some values - which makes it easier for South to compete to 3 Spades.

So we poll and find out what South would have done without the hesitation and with the correct explanation from North. i.e. what he expected North to say.

EW have no comeback for the MisBid - but may have for the UI. Obviously North has no UI (presumably although you can't discount South flinching - at least opponents didn't comment on South's reaction when North's announcement alerted him to his misbid - but regular partners can pick up tells.)
Nov. 1
John Portwood edited this comment Nov. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hand is too weak for game - you should have at least 4 points to do so.
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whilst I understand that point of view, basically all you have to do is decide what partner's BIT demonstrably suggests. If you aren't sure then it doesn't demonstrably suggest anything and you can bid what you would have bid without the pause. In such a situation it is defintely NOT a non-win position.

Unfortunately “what you would have bid had partner's bid been in tempo” doesn't quite work. You might have bid 4 - obviously: you might have bid 3 obviously: then there is no problem. The problem is if you have doubts as to which of those choices will be best AND you can work out what partner's BIT means.
Oct. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would like to compliment East for his ‘stripe-tailed ape’ double on hand 1.
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually Ed - there is no UI from the withdrawn 1 call in this situation.

“(b) except as in (a), if the insufficient bid is corrected with a comparable call (see Law 23A) the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16C does not apply but see D following.”

'D following' relates to whether the OS end up in a better contract due to the help of the IB. (paraphrased)
Oct. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Probably not true

“2. A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of a question, remark or gesture; by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton); by the manner in which a call or play is made; or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure (see also Law 73E2).”

If the TD judges that the opponent might be trying to mislead declarer - whether by making him think he has the queen, does not have the queen or even by sowing doubt and confusion - then he should award an adjusted score - say 70-30 in favour of the finesse working. This opponent obviously knows what RKCB is from the manner of his question. Even if he is asking it for the benefit of his partner he is (as he should know) committing an infraction.
Oct. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On the first round of bidding - yes! if you have no agreement (Not that anything has come up like that - I would expect most regular partnerships to have made a 10 second agreement such that opening 5 level bids in a major - natural: request partner to raise with King or Ace of trumps. Natural 6 level bids: natural: request partner to raise with Ace of trumps. It doesn't take long. - Especially as you have probably spent hours discussing continuations at lower levels)
Oct. 26
.

Bottom Home Top