Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kevin Rosenberg
1 2 3 4 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 78 79 80 81
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with what my mom said (for once) above.
Feb. 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
for points 1 and 2, I don't really disagree with you. I think overall, this sort of philosophy produces the fairest outcome in the environment most people play in (that is, I think there are far more cases of bids being fielded using UI in some way, then not using UI). As I said, it can result in people getting screwed when in fact there was no UI, and they just fielded the bid fairly.

Additionally, I never explicitly said this, but I think the whole notion of determining whether opener had UI from partner is sort of silly. If the defenders claim there was UI, and opener and responder say there was none, there is really nothing the director can do but guess anyway.

To your 3rd point, sure it could be construed that way by EW, but this is not my problem. I'm sure when you tell some people that their bid was not a LA, and was suggested by the UI, so it should be removed, they might take THAT as an accusation of cheating. But this is not my problem as a director, though I would try to clarify what I just said to EW if possible.

Also, in some sense I AM claiming that a large group of people have a tendency to be (possibly unintentionally) unethical (though I wouldn't say cheating) in these situations. This is in fact the whole reason I have my philosophy. I don't see how this relates to wires or prearranged signals. There is no notion of anything being prearranged here that I can see.
Feb. 7, 2018
Kevin Rosenberg edited this comment Feb. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
if everyone at the table says there was no UI (I don't know why you mentioned tempo), I would still rule as I said

I'd believe that a large majority of the time, the opener got some sort of signal, maybe even involuntary, from the responder, that caused them to at least be more aware of what was happening. It doesn't mean I'm accusing them of cheating, or even intentionally using UI. It's just my philosophy that pairs land on their feet way more than they should in these situations (it can't be a coincidence that they land on their feet much more than if there were screens), and therefore I think that UI contributes to this.

So even if nobody mentioned the opener having UI, I would still
assume it and rule as such. It's not a perfect world, but then again we see the same thing in other UI situations. Sometimes a player really was always going to make a certain bid, but because the UI suggested it, we don't let them make it. To me, this is a similar sort of case.
Feb. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I just want to clarify that I agree with Paul that there's nothing necessarily self-serving about EW comments. I believe those are honest comments, and it is in fact commendable to be honest in those situations.

That being said, in my view, it is not a good idea to allow these sort of bids that are based on catering to partner who “may have” forgotten about a convention, because those sorts of bids are nearly always based on UI (even if the receiver isn't consciously aware of it), unless the auction is truly impossible (which it isn't here)
Feb. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In theory, opener can do whatever they want since they have no UI. In practice though, I would never allow a bid like 3N, because it seems that the partnership must have some UI to get this situation right.

And as you say, it was clear to NS that W was uncomfortable with the alert, so it was probably at least somewhat clear to E as well. Your comment Q2 (Which isn't really a question) supports this, as E should have had no particular reason to think their partner forgot that I can see.

As as aside, 3d is probably not a call that should be allowed, but really it's better for the non-offending side to allow since it should cause the offending side to reach a higher amount of spades.

For Q3, in theory it should be sufficient to explain what happened and leave the director to explain the ruling. However if I had to frame the problem, I'd say that W had UI, which they may have used in their 3D bid, but more importantly it seems as though E may have picked up on some UI which enabled them to bid 3N despite earlier saying their partner had 4 card spade support

For Q4, really nothing EW could claim would ever cause me to allow a 3N contract on this auction.
Feb. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
it's nice to know I'm allowed to win a trick in preference to revoking after partner tanks.
Jan. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
for N to take any action (whatever it was intended to mean or interpreted as) after a long hesitation by South is absurd and warrants a harsh PP, as well as obviously rolling back to 3h undoubled if needed.
Jan. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
i'd definitely double at imps, though the downside of us doubling them into game is also larger there.
Jan. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
it shows a hand which has no reasonable action besides double. It should not be penalty (should not be a stack). Either of the first 2 options may be possible. Partner should certainly not pass with a singleton I think.
Jan. 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South's bidding seems a little inconsistent, but could easily be right.

If nothing else is clear, 2s must be a better bid than 4h, except for preemptive value, which I don't really care about here.
Jan. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
yes
Jan. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
penalty if your agreement is that you are in a force in this auction.

Otherwise, DSI is probably the best description. It would show extra values, with 3 diamonds probably being the ideal sort of holding.
Jan. 10, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's a reason most play problems don't specify too many tricks of play. Just give the problem from trick 1

Leading a low spade at trick 3 is nearly a claim on 3-1 spades, though not quite perhaps
Jan. 3, 2018
Kevin Rosenberg edited this comment Jan. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Given that South had spades, clearly they should have to play in 3 or 4 hearts, since without the ui South might have retransferred
Dec. 28, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems to me that W cannot be faulted. E might have some idea what is going on. I think they can sort of guess W's shape and hand type, but W doesn't have to be this strong really. E might try 4d I suppose, but I wouldn't assign much blame.
Dec. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In practice, it is almost impossible to diagnose with certainty a causal, but not suggestive, link between UI and a wild action. This kind of diagnosis is purely speculative. However I'd stipulate that wild/gambling/unusual actions become more prevalent in the presence of UI, even those not suggested by the UI.

This suggests that actions are being CAUSED, if not SUGGESTED by the UI. And at least in theory, I think it's pretty clear that we should want to punish any action caused by UI.
Dec. 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
the point is simply that when there is UI, and someone takes an unusual action, we should be alert to it, even if we don't see how the UI suggests that action. After all, there's been lots of discussion for days on this forum about what the UI actually suggests, so I doubt we can rely on most people at the table to come up with a thorough analysis of what the UI should or shouldn't actually suggest.

Here the action is not so weird anyway, which is why it's not the best example…
Dec. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think there is a case for looking at not just whether the UI suggested a certain action, but also whether it seems to have caused a certain action (even if it doesn't seem like it should have suggested it)

The reason for this is we want to punish people who even attempt to use the UI. While this interpretation is not really in accordance with the laws afaik, I agree with it in theory
Dec. 14, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a slam bid, and a grand slam is impossible I think. I'd bid 4nt and bid a slam when partner shows 1.

I don't love 2h, but I understand it. Double is an option. Prefer 2h to 4c by a little I think
Dec. 9, 2017
Kevin Rosenberg edited this comment Dec. 9, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Debatably every bid besides 2s was an issue, but 3nt was by far the worst
Dec. 9, 2017
1 2 3 4 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 78 79 80 81
.

Bottom Home Top