Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kevin Rosenberg
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
pass, removing partner's next double to 4N
Feb. 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I chose 2C then 3C, but ok with 1C if it is stylistically agreed / feasible
Feb. 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1NT and don't care
Feb. 13, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have a stopper, right?

I think trying to get to 4s is kind of silly, 3n seems to have far more chances on balance. But I need 3n from my side, so I think the choices are pass or 3n. The red makes it more rewarding, but also more risky as going down a bunch is obviously possible.
Feb. 12, 2019
Kevin Rosenberg edited this comment Feb. 12, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think in my view, I don't really see the offending side as ever ‘benefitting’ BECAUSE of the UI. Yes, they may do better without screens, but screens vs. not screens are really two different games. I think what causes them to benefit in these rare cases is the lack of screens, and the fact the fact they had a misunderstanding. At least the latter happens every day, but for every time it happens, 10 pairs lose because they had a misunderstanding (at least in an ideal world). I don't see any problem with the former either… - as I said, screens vs. not screens is just two different games.
Feb. 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
yeah more examples isn't gonna help. We disagree purely on the point - I would disagree in both of your examples as well…

Again, why should the opponents have any right to know the wheels have come off? They do not have a right to know we are having a misunderstanding, they have a right to know our agreements.
Feb. 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
sorry somehow I just missed the part about LHO asking partner. But still, I don't have to say yes to RHO's question, since they can't ask me about my own bid.
Feb. 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with the sentiment of your example, in that you must say yes, and not show any anxiety or distress. However, in your example, it's a bit odd because for some reason, your RHO asked you a question about your own bid? So I don't see how you have UI in that case.
Feb. 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
well I don't know what to say to that, because it seems just false.
Feb. 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe as Ed says below, I am entitled to know I've misbid, ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF GIVING A CORRECT EXPLANATION. Of course I am not entitled to know when it comes to selecting my calls / plays. I'm pretty sure this is in accordance with the Laws (though not certain), as I believe the Laws only make reference to UI in the context of selecting bids/plays.

You're telling me I'm supposed to give my opponents what I know is an incorrect explanation of our agreements. I don't think there is any situation where this ought to be true.
Feb. 11, 2019
Kevin Rosenberg edited this comment Feb. 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why shouldn't my opponents think I hold 10-12 if that is my systemic agreement, and I've just misbid? That seems fairly normal, no? They're not entitled to know that I've misbid.
Feb. 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
no, if you know that your actual agreement is 10-12 (even through UI), then by extension you know your actual agreement for 2H is majors. You should tell the opponents your actual agreement, even if that UI can't influence your future actions.

Now if you're not sure what your actual agreement is, it creates a really awkward picture, since now it might wake your partner up to the fact that something weird is going on. I basically agree with Kit in this case. More specifically, I think you just tell the opponents whatever you think is most likely to be your actual agreement (using whatever UI you want to determine this)

In general, there are two boxes of thinking here, which are totally separate

1. Informing the Opponents about your (correct) agreements
2. Your own follow-up actions

Afaik, there is nothing in the rules against using UI to help achieve #1, which is definitely something that we do we want achieved. Bridge is a game of actions, and the only place UI is harmful is if it affects #2.
Feb. 11, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Ben, and possibly others, above. At imps, 4d seems definitely best, as your hand is quite good for slam, and you expect to make 5d. At mps, 3n is probably correct, but close.
Feb. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You should accurately EXPLAIN your agreement, even if you only know your agreement because of UI. However, you cannot act upon this UI.
Feb. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
if the opponents pass throughout, you could wind up declaring in a suit where they have length. I guess we can never bid anything at all if we don't know the opponent's longest suit.
Feb. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I Think I believe in 1d in theory but I haven't done it enough in practice to say I'd pull it out in a big event. I think I'll start doing it more though.
Feb. 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I were coaching novices I'd say their bids are totally normal and move on. If I were coaching more advanced players I'd say to e that this hand is a good example of why one should be wary of trapping with bad spots, but that being said, the bids are STILL just normal here with a 6th trump. A lot of resulting going on here in the comments
Feb. 6, 2019
Kevin Rosenberg edited this comment Feb. 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think somewhat close, but passing looks right. Only other option is to make a single try with 5c imo. I expect most people will bid 4s on any bal 18 to 19, most of which will make slam touch and go. Hands like aqxx ax akjxx xx are about as giod as i can expect, and there slam is fine, but not incredible.

Pegs failure to include pass as an option sways me to believe it was not the winning option on this hand, else she is playing a very deep game
Feb. 4, 2019
Kevin Rosenberg edited this comment Feb. 4, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd have bid 4H over 2n, and I don't think doubling here is particularly good judgement with a fit in both red suits and poor trump spots

Note that even if you choose not to bid 4H over 2nt, surely you MUST at least bid 3c, which I think can logically only be a game try in hearts.
Feb. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I sympathize a lot with E's bid. I know I don't like W's bid. Still, nobody was way out of line.
Jan. 30, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top