Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Matthias Berghaus
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or maybe because he wanted to get out of the auction before the roof fell in…. Like another poster previously noted, this looks like a strong suggestion to West to shut up. If it was deliberate, of course.
July 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What`s wrong with a club to the head, occasionally?
July 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So if this misadventure is about to improve your partnership, by all means continue it. There is no shame in bidd ing 6 occasionally, or 7, if one is prepared to recognize why he/she shouldn`t have done so. Enlightenment doesn`t have to be instantaneously.
July 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with your view re RKCB for , and 4 should be RKCB for , but 4N natural?? If we can make 4N, how many is 4 going off? 5? More? He is trying to muddy the waters with a fit and not much defense, having psyched s out of contention already…..
July 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If he is a bad player, he may (even if very unlikely, even then), but I agree that RKCB makes no sense at all, for whatever suit. 4N nat makes no sense either, so pard is operating with a fairly weak hand and a fit, IMO. But I have been wrong before….
July 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This may depend on the patient`s condition when the operation comes to a close…..
July 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don`t want to rain on your parade, but pard doubled 4, not 3, being prohited by law to do so even if opp hadn`t bid, as doubling partner is illegal, even if sometimes sensible. I agree that 4N is not keycard for , but he now has KC for a suit I rather violently rejected? Come again? He tries to buy it in as low as possible, maybe even undoubled…
July 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 non-forcing? Sure, it need not be strong, but I have not seen anybody pass here, like… ever. I agree with the rest, though.
July 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I should pass. And hope it makes….
July 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that the “defect” of the Amsbury Defence is that reponder does not have to act, as the suit bid will practically never be the final contract. Ok, never is an overbid, let`s make that rarely.
July 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I used to play Pass=intermediate hand, to be described later (strong clubbers don`t eat up bidding space), X=strong, 1=s, 1 natural, 1=13 cards, just some noise (1NT vs. Moscito….) with some runout agreements to back it up, 1NT two non-touching suits (the black suits are touching for this purpose), 2x natural or next two suits, "NT some extreme two-suiter. That was fun, especially 1. During that time I was playing a HUM-system (when allowed) including 1 0-10 any. That was fun too, but 1 was not the strong point, being able to play transfers over pass was…

Counter-measures: We played transfers, and continued to do so as long as 2NT was available. Worked well for us.
July 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that communication around this case (as reported, but I see no grounds to disbelieve the report) was abominable. I don`t know about the verdict, as even Peg, who was involved, can`t tell us why it was that way, which was another failure in communication. But, all told (from what I know), I agree with Sabrina that it was a good thing Peg brought it up, and I hope somebody is going to look into this. There have been things that simply have to be corrected, and others that might. If the TD did the right things for the right reasons, or if the AC did the right things for the right reasons, they should be commended (thanks to Sabrina to bring that expressions from my passive vocabulary to my active one) for the job they did, and should be corrected if they didn`t. The matter is a sensitive one, either way, as difficult judgement have to be taken (and I find tasks of judging beginners and inexperienced players invariably to be the most difficult ones…), and - other proof being absent - I surmise that all involved acted according to their ability. This may- or may not - have been good enough (even if the TD came to another conclusion as the AC, but a TD should not try to sell his decision to an AC. Explain, yes, but not sell). A TD should decide how a thinks a case should be decided, and an AC might disagree, but all should communicate their decision, especially with newbies. If I hear that a pair says they will not attend a tournamnet again, someone didn`t do the job…
July 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Amy Sure, I have seen this too. And some time, sooner or later, they are going to realize that HCP is not all there is to Bridge. Can you always tell at what level they are? At what level you`re partner is? Sometimes you can. without a doubt, but that skill is not innate, it is learned. If these people had those skills, then that would be an argument to roll the score back, no doubt. But it is a skill you expect from someone who raises to game in a minor on a singleton Ace instead of bidding a seven-card major? I wouldn`t…
July 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I could roll back Donald Trump to 5s, I probably would… Jests aside, this may be about players (using the description in the most broad of moods) who open 3 on this, have a fear of 3 being passed out, and similar things. And the point is..? Anyone being a member of a forum like this has vast amounts of reserves re Bridge skills, compared to some beginners I met, and invariably I find judging those actions to be the toughest TD decisions imaginable, because I can`t, for the life of me, slip into that mindset. I may have been able, once, but if that is so (I suspect that it must have been true, sometimes, and my partners sometimes insist that it still is…) my brain refuses to admit to it. We easily forget how bad we were, a (more or less) long time ago.
July 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Steve: We are talking flight C (or worse) here, maybe total beginners (I was not there,so I might be wrong, but when Peg says they didn`t understand the ruling it does not make me think of experienced players). So, yes, with players of some experience slow tends to show, and with beginners it shows… anything. And even with more experinced players, it does not always show what the “victim” supposes it does…
I have seen players of that description make the most (for me) outrageous bids and land on their feet (and then make it, or not) or go for some number. Get away from judging beginners by your standards. There are (and there must be, if our game is to have a future) players who have diificulties with what, to another player of more experience, would be the most automatic of reactions. So? You may not remember ( I don`t, but this may be a natural reaction to protect my sanity..) what I did at that stage. I vividly remember going down in a stone- cold 3 no by blocking a suit, which I would not be able to imagine today except for that memory. It hurts, but that was how things were, then. So, what did it show when responder did whatever he/she did? I have no idea, I was not there. But if you can`t see how a hesitation from a beginner could possibly not mean a d….d thing, any discussion - as Henrik said - is futile.

I don`t want to say that no UI was possibly exchanged, but if we do not look into who those people are and what their level of experience is, then no meaningful analysis can be achieved. This would be about as bad,. IMO, as people accusing Peg of taking beginners to appeals, which is not called for either without further input, if ever. If those people were the most raw of beginners ever witnessed, I would not blame Peg for her appeal. I might not do the same (then again, I might, who knows?), but it is her right, so who am I to question her decision?
July 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We can obviously see that. The intent can be in no doubt. The agreement can, even if I think that a two-suiter (how do you show both minors, 3NT??) is a hand you will hold more often… But for the law it is the agreement that matters, intents be d****d
July 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The actual hand strikes me as being too weak for LM. Yesterday I had y, AK10xx,A, AKQxxx, which I thought too strong. Whether that is right or not is another matter, but the actual hand would be too weak defensively for mee, whatever that is worth
July 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, 6-6 can (by definition) have no more than 5 losers, so 4 is not unusual for 6-6, really. Yesterday I had 2 with 6-5….
July 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As the OP said, (and I know), it was not on screens.

@Gerben Last round not on screens? There was a time when semi and final was on screens, I don`t think it still is. The rounds of 16 and 8 definitely are not on screens.

@Magnus (Sorry, I am too lazy to get my old ASCII-table out, and my keyboard driver does not deliver, me not living in Iceland…) Would you please give a reasoning why that should be the case? N promised (or so he thought) 5-5+, he got 6-6. Is that enough to defend 4 doubled? Maybe, but a poll seems to be in order.

P.S. If you happen to run across Svein Runar Eiriksson, would you give him my regards and tell him I am envious of him playing in that event? :-)
July 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael,
if opener were you, me, anyone with a tiny bit of experience, I would adjust for sure, and in many cases the problem would not have cropped up as 6 would never have been bid. In effect I would adjust if huddler had bid 3 after the preempt and huddled later. Here, I have some doubt (lots, in fact)whether said modicum of experience (never mind expertise, you don`t need that to read a huddle) is there. Since I don`t know the players involved I can`t solve that part of the puzzle from where I sit, but this scenario is not one where I would adjust “automatically” (which a TD shouldn`t do, ever).
I do not think that the concept of raising a preempt to heighten the preemptive effect is in the arsenal of someone not bidding 3 here, a bid more than 99% of players would make without thinking, so 5 was bid to make, maybe optimistically, maybe pessimistically, but in a world where 3 forcing simply is not there I do not believe that slow shows all the time. Slow shows a problem, yes, but which one? To have UI there must be information involved, and - as Ruy suggested further up - this seems not to be there. Responder may just be terrified to contract for 11 tricks. Maybe the hurdle lay with 12 tricks, and maybe a message was sent, and if so it has to be adjusted, sure, but maybe not and they just got lucky. I can`t tell. The AC rolled it back. If they talked to the players and found out about it, fine.
July 4, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top