Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would certainly like to see qualifications as to when hands at the extreme ends of a wide distribution would be opened. If vulnerability is a factor then you can qualify your bidding. (9-17 non-vulnerable, 11-17 vulnerable or whatever). Suppose you added the following on your convention card

1NT 9-17 (note 1)

“Note 1: at the lower range needs additional playing strength other than just high card points e.g. good spot cards and a 5-card suit. At the higher range hand will be defective in intermediates and/or hold honours in short suits”.

The problem is that you can't announce all that - all you can announce is the range. The only other option is to alert the call as it has apotentially unexpected meaning. I would recommend that players of a very wide NT range should ‘pre-alert’ opponents, since the method is unusual and opponents should have the right to be able to agree whether they play this as a strong or weak NT, as their defences may differ.
Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes - since it has a higher minimum value than might be otherwise expected and is pretty much game forcing. (Many players will respond one of a major with pretty weak hands in terms of high card points)
Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In particular those that have a potentially unexpected meaning or are not exclusively for takeout (over a natural suit), do not show the suit (over a transfer), or limit or show something extra about partner's hand e.g. a double of a weak 2 showing 15-17 points, or are lead directing, but not the actual suit being doubled, or are not for penalties (over a 1NT, 2NT or 3NT call). In fact the majority of different types of doubles ARE alertable - it is just that by far the most common uses aren't.
Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In that specific case you make a note on your convention card. Blue Book (Orange Book, Yellow Book, Green Book, Bright pink Book with yellow spots on or whatever the EBU decide to call it)

3 D 2 If a partnership agrees to make take-out doubles of suit bids on almost all hands with opening bid values including length in opener’s suit, this should be disclosed on the system card. Similarly the practice of doubling for take-out on unusually weak hands should be marked on the front of the card.

(I usually make a note that “JP is more likely to double with an off-shape hand than JP Partner” or “JP is more likely to bid 1NT at the extremes than JP Partner”.)

(I currently have (on one convention card) “This is a new partnership - pauses are more likely to be as a result of trying to remember partnership agreements than having an awkward call to make”)
Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Drury abuse is one of the more common TD calls when 1st/ 2nd in hand has a decent club suit not strong enough to bid at the one level or pre-empt. (Along with Flannery in the US and Ghestem (everywhere)).

FWIW, I play 4 card majors and so full Drury would be impracticable. On the upside, I am not bidding 3 Spades/ hearts over 1 Spade/ Heart with only three. My partners forget enough conventions as it is - don't see why I should help them forget another one.
Aug. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
EW played a weak NT (12-14).
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Novice/ improver games are so slow, because they have to think about what to do. they don't have the experience.

At Durham we play an 18 board supervised session in something just over 2 1/2 hours (3 boards a round makes it quicker). Again - we had 6 1/2 tables and playing 6 rounds of a 7 round Mitchell makes life easier for them.

Even our intermediate session don't like playing non-Mitchells. I had 9 1/2 tables yesterday and, knowing the clientele, played 8 rounds of a 10 round Mitchell (24 of 30 boards), figuring it would be easier for them even though EW had to sit out 3 boards instead of two had I played a double hesitation Mitchell or a 3/4 Howell.
Aug. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is hard to see how a deliberate revoke and the creation of a penalty card (which has to be led)could work to the detriment of the non offending side.
Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
deleted
Aug. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well it seems to be a case of Director Error (failing to advise that the J can be changed and if so that the 3 can be also - Law 62C)

So we apply law 82C

C. Director’s Error

If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non‐offending for that purpose.

So the question now is: “can the board be scored normally” and if not how do you treat “both sides as non-offending”?

No doubt I will be corrected but it seems to me that you have to rule that (for NS) they will find the correct defence part of the time. (Maybe 40%) and that (for EW) that NS will NOT find the correct defence most of the time e.g. 20%.

Other split weighted decisions are available.
Aug. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe because the 1 level bids are, to all intents and purposes, not limited like the 1NT bids are (witness the problem if you have to find a comparable call to natural No trump bid).

The use of an HCP method, again, is to make life easier for opponents and the range is more of an indication of aggressiveness in the player making a call rather than an absolute value.

In the EBU the rules are: 8+ HCP and obey the rule (in 1st and 2nd) of 18 (most tournaments).

We also evaluate opening suit bids differently. HCP play a far less important role than NT - key factors include shape. In NT the shape is less important - it must be ‘balanced’ (qualifications depend on RA) - so strength (usually evidenced by HCP) is the major variable.
Aug. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One reason why we have to declare a No trump Range is that the less experienced (walrus) players need something nice and simple to evaluate the hand.

Thus a weak No Trump hand should basically have (IMHO) four or 4.5 likely tricks in it. (cards that have a substantially above average chance of actually winning a trick. Increase that to 5/ 5.5 and you probably have a strong (15-17) No Trump hand.

However it is not easy to quantify (“likely to win a trick”)- we take into account good spot cards and honour-synergy.

Thus the simple stated range philosophy.
Aug. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And I suspect can't have 6 spades. Players who are sufficiently savvy to start using conventions are probably savvy to use weak 2 bids.
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East is at liberty to do so - but if it goes wrong he has no comeback. There is no law that says you have to deduce your opponents are having a bidding misunderstanding.

The director may have got the ruling wrong. First of all he has ruled misinformation (by giving the pass back) and then he has ruled no misinformation (by letting the result stand).
Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lucky on the first board - I would rule 4 Spades down rather a lot! Or even 6 Hearts doubled down two.
Aug. 19
John Portwood edited this comment Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You may have problems in a large field if several denominations are played several times.

(I did a comparison between our score (53%) and the winners' score (65%) using your original scoring algorithm in a club event on Thursday. If I got it right, we lost 53 imps in 23 boards and the winners lost 51 imps in 21 boards).

Hand 1: Par : +420: Our score: +400 : Loss 20 = 1 imp Winners score -400 : Loss = 0
Hand 2: Par: -2220: Our score: -1440 : Loss 0 Winners score +1440 : Loss 780 =13 imps // 7NT makes
Hand 3: Par: -400: Our score: -120 : loss 0 Winners score -120 : Loss – 280: = 7 imps // 5C Makes

Hand 4: Par: -650: Our score: -620 : Loss 0 Winners score +500: Loss -120 = 3 imps // Accepted insufficient penalty
Hand 5: par: +460: Our score: +50 : Loss -410 = 9 imps Winners score +400: Loss = 0 // The massive club hand. You can make 5NT.
Hand 6: Par: -600: Our score: -130 : Loss 0 Winners score +130: Loss = -470 = 10 imps // Didn’t bid and make 3NT by North

Hand 7: Par: +1320: Our score: +720 : Loss 600 = 12 imps Winners score -690: Loss = 0 // we didn’t bid slam
Hand 8: Par: -100: Our score: -100 : Loss 0 Winners score +170: Loss = 0
Hand 9: par: 600: Our score: +140 : Loss 460 = 10 imps Winners score -140: Loss = 0 // We didn’t bid 3NT

Hand 10: Par: - 1330: Our Score -180 : Loss 0 Winners score -620: Loss = 0
Hand 11: Par: -130: Our score -50 : Loss 0 Winners score +50: Loss = 0
Hand 12: Par: -630: Our score -200 : Loss 0 Winners score -170: Loss = 0

Hand 13: Par: -1370: Our score -620 : Loss 0
Hand 14: Par: +130: Our score +120 : Loss 10= 0 imps
Hand 15: Par: +430: Our score +460 : Loss 0

Hand 16: Par: -400: Our score +200 : Loss 0 Winners score +100: Loss = 300 = 7 imps // Winners can make 3NT
Hand 17: Par: -980: Our Score -450 : Loss 0 Winners score +450: Loss =530 = 11 imps // Winners can make 6 Spades
Hand 18: Par: -140: Our Score 50% : Loss 0 Winners score +170: Loss = 0

Hand 19: Par: -130: Our Score +50 : Loss 0 Winners score +130: Loss 0
Hand 29: Par: -110: Our score +140 : Loss 0 Winners score +200: Loss 0
Hand 21: Par: -140: Our score -600 : Loss 480 = 10 imps Winners Score +600: Loss 0 // We let 3NT through

Hand 22: Par: -140: Our score -140 : Loss 0 Winners score -110 : Loss 0
Hand 23: Opar: +120: Our score +150 : Loss 0 Winners score +150: Loss 0
Hand 24: Par: +980: Our score +480 : Loss 500 = 11 imps Winners score -980: Loss 0 // We didn’t bid the slam

So our score on this basis is -53 imps
Winners score is -51 imps
Aug. 17
John Portwood edited this comment Aug. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At a certain level, it would not occur to defenders to underlead the Ace. The guideline - don't underlead an Ace against a suit contract - is pretty well hammered into players at an early age of their bridge development - and it is therefore often hard to spot the times when this can be broken.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe NS should work on their 2-suited overcalls. Even Playing CRASH/ CRO they would have found the double fit.

Oh but they play Michaels . . .
Aug. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am sure we all would like to play Bridge when we can buy the Ace of Hearts (Red Mana) for $20,000 (being price of MTG Alpha or Beta Black Lotus) - only to find the opponents hvae bought the two of trumps (Black Mana) for $10.00 which defeats it.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The laws do state that even if there is no damage a PP can be awarded for breach of UI.

Assuming that setting trumps and showing a good hand for the raise is demonstrably suggested by the BIT. The question is what would the logical alternatives be playing the methods of the partnership .

17 points, 1st round control in the enemy suit, 2nd round control in clubs and a Queen of diamonds that is now pulling its weight (partner looks to be 5-4 in the pointed suits - assuming they have a system to show 5-5).

Against that - if the slam needs the spade finesse then it is 100% going to be offside due to the bidding.

So I am not going to complain about the result , just that the TD didn't take any advice.

(anyone wonder why not just launch into RKCB - you get a 5 Club response (14) and know you are missing two key cards. End of story.)
Aug. 8
.

Bottom Home Top