Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kevin Rosenberg
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 77 78 79 80
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it's not clear yet, but one possibility the way I play would be not hearts, and 3 spades.

3451 obviously possible, as is probably some hand which just wants to cuebid spades (though I might try not to do this to avoid ambiguity). Hands without real hearts pretty much have to clarify it more than once I think (e.g. bid 3S then 4S, or something of that nature), but of course, this usually is ok since responder will have 5+ spades when they raise hearts.

It definitely can be difficult to sort out when slam is in the picture as well, and I'm not sure I have a great answer evening playing with myself as partner.
Oct. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lee, I disagree with point a) as a clear assumption. Further, if 3H were natural, then 4H would definitely be natural. Others have given 5-7 hands for example, that could logically want to be in 4H.

There are some situations in which you can logically deduce that there's been a mixup. The paradigmatic one is when you bid 4H to play over a 1NT opener, forgetting you play Texas, and your partner alerts and bids 4S. Here, it's been determined that you are allowed to wake up because the 4S bid is truly impossible. I don't think this case is in the same category, however.
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
i agree that such an explanation is never necessary by the rules, but I was just saying that I don't have a problem with saying, “our agreement is majors, but it seems like partner might have forgot”.

The alternative is saying, “our agreement is majors”, and then looking at them kind of pointedly. Your pass already clearly implies you think they forgot in certain situations like this one, which is why I don't have a huge problem with saying it… It's probably not technically legal I guess.
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well because I think pass is still obviously a LA. If partner could have had hearts before the double (that is to say, if partner might have thought you had clubs), then there is no reason why that still can't be true after the double.

In fact, I think there's basically no situation where pass is only a LA before you get penalty doubled.
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I disagree with this. East has no UI (ostensibly), And I don't think there is anything wrong with saying, it looks like partner might have forgot, if you are asked about 5c. Now of course the 5c bid is almost definitely not allowable, but that's another matter
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You may think that, but I don't see why it should be so.
Oct. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Showing grand interest at the 6 level could be important to know what do over 7c (rather than just having a forcing pass as only yardstick). Surely the decision of whether to bid over 7c must be more important than the decision of what to lead against 7c.

That being said 6d sounds like a good diamond suit (most likely) to me, with 6h as cooperating last train. But the intent is certainly a grand try and not lead directing.
Oct. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also, no, I very much doubt any competent director would rule that you had to pull back to 5s if your partner had run from a penalty double. I think at this point it's more than reasonable to assume they don't have 4 card (or any) spade support. Now how your partner could ever know to run would be a separate and more worrying concern…

The key point being that I disagree with your claim that partner could run with a freak, worried about a 5/6 level decision. Running from a penalty double because of worry about a high level decision would not make sense, since passing will end the bidding roughly 100% of the time in this auction.
Sept. 27
Kevin Rosenberg edited this comment Sept. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I disagree strongly with this, and don't think it is in line with the rules. Partnership experience (i.e. past behavior) is a critical part of the agreements and understanding experienced partnerships hold together.

For example, it is perfectly valid to ask an experienced pair stylistic questions (e.g. preempting style), which can be answered using past behavior at the table, and not necessarily explicit agreements.

If partner is prone to forgetting system, this is AI to you, their partner, and you are allowed to cater for this in the bidding (and I'm guessing you probably would if your hand / the auction suggested it, and you had no UI to deal with). Thus, it can and should absolutely be part of explanations to your opponents if you think it's likely based on past experience that your partner might have forgotten something*

* - of course in practice, often it is also one's hand which makes one suspect this, and this is not necessary to disclose.
Sept. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
yes, perhaps on that issue, you can account for the UI only in the purpose of explaining a bid correctly.

At any rate, I don't think it's ever a good idea to mention partner's tempo as part of an explanation. If partner's tempo happened to help you remember your actual agreements, fine, disclose it to the opponents since they are entitled to know it.

But if partner's tempo makes you more confident they've forgotten your agreement, I can't find any good reason why you should have to tell the opponents this as a part of an explanation.
Sept. 27
Kevin Rosenberg edited this comment Sept. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They can ask questions to learn about your agreements or partnership history. They are not entitled to ask any questions about inferences they can draw from a hesitation. They are of course allowed to draw their own inferences.

Sorry if I misunderstood a point you were trying to make above, but really I think this is making a pretty simple issue more complicated. You tell them your agreement, and you tell them your partnership history (i.e. how likely it is your partner forgot based on past/lack of experience). If they continue asking questions, you just repeat what you said.

Anything you could have drawn from your partner's hesitation is UI to you, and should not be part of your answers, at least by the law. If you're trying to be extra helpful to them and use this information for that purpose alone, some people may appreciate it, but it's not strictly allowed/necessary, and I think I would advise against it.
Sept. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I too was surprised at how few declarer's made the hand.

That being said, remember the bidding wasn't the same at all tables. For example, I know at one table that South had made a lead directing double of spades. Declarer probably placed them with 5 spades, and thus flying queen of spades becomes much more attractive, as South alone could guard the 3rd round of spades.
Sept. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
what you said to the opponent originally was sufficient, and was the extent of your agreement / knowledge of partnership history.

You are by no means required (in fact I think such a comment would be out of place) to explain the inferences you can draw from your partner's hesitations to your opponent.
Sept. 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ben and I would have had a firm agreement that 4n shows minors.
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For the last question, a cuebid in auction 1 is, by my answer, a serious slam try (since I thought 3N was nonserious). I'm not sure this is accounted for in the phrasing… (since by definition we've shown 12-14 basically, so a cuebid must be less serious)
Sept. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was recently told by a pretty good player that it's a very bad idea to balance in this auction. I know nearly everyone would double as E, but I don't think it's necessarily correct, as hard as that is to accept.

Here balancing is a bit more attractive because it's a weak NT against nonvul opps, so they could be stealing.

At any rate, certainly no real blame.
Sept. 7
Kevin Rosenberg edited this comment Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I (mostly) stand by what I said. I concede that it's a socially inappropriate thing to say, but I don't think it's the kind of thing that warrants outrage. I think responding “f you” would be a largely disproportionate response.

Overall, I think it's possible that I came off a little too lenient, such a comment is considered inappropriate, sure. But still, I would say that “a little inappropriate” is in my view, closer to what it should be, than “outrageously out of line”
Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It definitely can get into deep game theory, as W should theoretically stiff their spade some percentage of the time according to how often they think declarer will guess correctly . On this hand, declarer should basically always be finessing as you tried to say at the table, so west should always stiff their spade if they had it I think.
Sept. 6
Kevin Rosenberg edited this comment Sept. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Her comment was more out of line, but I don't think it's considered polite to suggest critiques of an opponents play unless you have some reason to think they want to hear it.

That being said, I don't think you did anything “wrong”. It seems impolite, and perhaps just a little inappropriate is all.
Sept. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
sure, or that
Sept. 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 77 78 79 80
.

Bottom Home Top