Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Matt Foster
1 2 3 4 5 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What better course of action is advised for NS, in EBUland where
A) Players are entitled to assume that a call is non-alertable if it is not alerted.
B] Asking questions during the auction creates UI, rather more so than in ACBL land unless one _always_ asks
Sept. 15, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RF summarises the reason for my ruling perfectly. I await DALBs commentary, as it’s emminently possible I’ve misunderstood his position on such situations.
Sept. 15, 2019
Matt Foster edited this comment Sept. 16, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That’s an accurate summary.
I don’t think that under EBU regulations (whatever you think of them), North should never have been in the position he found himself. No agreement by definition includes “spades”. Why would he risk leaving it in? (Ok, why did he leave it in on the actual auction?)
Sept. 15, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North did not alert 3
His belief was that with a T/O double (as he thought), then 3 was natural and pre-emptive - hence why he passed it.

Had East passed it would have been alerted as short spades, and apparently also type case if X wasn’t T/O, but this has no evidence to back it up, other than general principles.
Sept. 15, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was only called to the table at the end of the hand. I never did get a satisafactory explanation as to why a take out double was chosen with 7 of them.
Sept. 15, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is Wales (Great Britain) where multi is routine.
Sept. 15, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The purpose of alerting and announcing is to draw to the opponents’ attention a call by partner that may have a special meaning. If a player is uncertain whether the regulations require an alert, but believes it would help the opponents, he should alert (see also 2A2)
Sept. 15, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was there UI? Yes
Where there LAs to the action chosen at the table? Yes
Was the action taken suggested by the UI? You bet it was.
Slow penalty doubles express doubt, and slow raises/jumps to game express doubt we should have investigated alternative levels/strains.

The directors job isn’t to be appalled, it’s to apply the law that causes them to be appalled and adjust the score. Otherwise they have no right to be appalled.
Aug. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Slow shows extras, and that’s pretty well established as precedent from my reading of the past NABC casebooks.

I’d need a very convincing poll, correctly carried out, to convince me otherwise.
Aug. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many years ago at the YC, Richard Probst did something similar opposite me. When I was foolish enough to query his response to Stayman, he cheerfully announced that indeed he didn’t hold a _4_ card major.

IIRC we were playing “houses and crosses” on the side, which may have had some bearing on it.
June 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I’m worried that some of my partners might think that 4 was to play.
April 14, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
RF - what additional information do you need to not abstain?
I’m pretty sure you don’t know the hand :)
Nov. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Patrick, true but it seems unlikely that either the opponents at the table
Or the director had this knowledge.
Sept. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why would I show 5 when I have 6 of them?
Sept. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I alert my xNT responses to 1 when playing 4cM and strong club for this reason.
But then EBu blue book 4B1(b) provides guidance:
“ natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning.”

1M shows 5, unless GF, when it may be starting a Canapé.
Sept. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I’m not so sure that 6 would be a long suit grand try, but I am certain that clubs is the thing, and we appear to have exactly the right holding. Yes J would be nice, but this is what we got dealt.
Aug. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ace attitude, K count has always implied leading the Q from (say) KQxx to me, which also gets attitude.
July 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wouldn’t we make a simple raise with the same hand with 5 low diamonds?
July 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So declarer seems to be marked as 1291.
(Partner ditches high low in hearts, and odd spade, then 2 more hearts).

My man came down to Qx A — Q worries about a stiff SK with declarer, but that isn’t really any good as declarer will cash the 9th diamond and stepping stone squeeze us.

Happily, as perhaps the carding and bidding indicated I had started with 4=6 in the majors and had come down to Kx in each major. When declarer exited with a heart I was down to Kx K.

Partner, a premier grand master, and occasional frequenter of this site chose to lead Q to trick 11, missing not only the stepping stone that didn’t exist, but also the pseudo fratricide squeeze this inflicted on me, who really didn’t think I’d have any decisions to make on this hand, and needed to hold onto the correct last 2 cards. Perhaps fatuously I reckoned that if partner had Q of spades left he would have exited with it, and thus discarded the K playing for the much more unlikely possibility of this deck having started with an even number of hearts in it.

So declarer started with
X
QX
AKQJT9xxx
X
June 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If declarer has stiff K, doesn’t he need K as well to be cold on the triple strip squeeze thingy?
June 7, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6
.

Bottom Home Top