Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Askgaard
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does the proposed requirement of alerting more behind screens actually stem from some regulation?

Or is it just a personal opinion that really can't be relevant for official MI rulings?
May 15, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jonathan said it, I agree word for word in both posts.
May 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Exposes a problematic thing about the rules.

In theory we can make any bid we like, if we have no UI.

But in practice we can't make a bid that will look like we have forgot our agreements. Even though we haven't and the deviance was deliberate. Like if the 2 bid was deliberate, or if we decide to bid 2-transfer as a bluff while actually holding hearts.

Because once partner explains our agreements, we will be toast, since the ruling will be that we have forgot and now have UI.

This “hidden” restriction is actually a little sad.
May 10, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My favourite worst agreement is when someone tries to battle a strong club system with a homebrew madcap multimeaning WMD defense which was agreed/invented 5 minutes in game time.

If it comes up, it should not be hard to guess who will be more likely to be out of their comfort zone:

The pair who have played the defense for 5 minutes… or

the pair who likely have had experience with all kinds of madcap defenses against their strong club for maybe decades.

Sure it may strike a homerun, but it is a big loser on average. Convoluted conventions takes work to play well, including defenses.
April 21, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would surely not interrupt someone in the middle of his thinking.

I think it is best to wait until after the auction (but before the lead), when we can see that there could be a problem. There is not a problem if they don't bid slam. That would be my usual approach. But I might judge from the situation, opponents, etc etc that it would be better to clear everything up right after 4N.
April 18, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Disagree. We can't act on every BIT like that, it is not practical. Wait until there could be a problem.
April 18, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Our Viking club produces some auctions like that as well, I don't remember our records.

We have had the auction:
1-1-1-1-1N-2-2-2-2-p

Strong club, neg, 19+, double neg, 19-21NT, stayman and signoff with both majors. So relatively natural :)

But it is just a matter of time before this one comes up:

1-1-1-1N-2-2-2-2-2N-3-3-3-3-3N-4-4-4-4-4N-5-any

Responder has 4-2-3-4 16+hcp with 1/4A, 1/4K, Q and no other queens.
Opener has a strong club and has been asking, he can now place the contract. It would be beautiful if he chose 5, but that is not very likely given the combined strength :)
April 16, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This girl scout type of hand is unlikely to cause them to do much misguessing if I preempt. So I won't stretch to a vul weak 2 overcall here.

And pass then 2 is certainly not my cup of coughee.

2nd choice it is.
April 16, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just out of curiosity I tried to search for the board.

But if Magnus meant the annual Champion's Cup, the EBL event, I didn't succeed.

From the line ups on the EBL site, it seems that the board should then have happened in 2006, 2007, 2008 or 2009, which were the years both Iceland as well as both the doctors were playing.

For 2006 and 2007 all the score sheets are still there for every match. I ran through them but didn't find a board that could match the description.

For 2008 and 2009 the board results are now missing. From the result site and the bulletins respectively, I could see that Germany and Iceland were in different groups and didn't play eachother in the KOs.

So it seems to me that the refered board wasn't one from the Champion's Cup.
April 16, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes for sure it would bother me having my integrity questioned like that. And with all the crackhead analyses that are usually flying around at the table or afterwards, I can only guess what a mess your proposed rule would lead to…

Anyway, cheating “the doctors' way” (nb: we should allow them their appeal!) is not about producing outlandish results through crazy ass decisions.

Rather it is like playing bridge just with some extra information flowing in constantly. Like having UI. So when one gets those hard decisions where normal matches are decided: to compete to 4 or not, to chose bewteen close opening leads, to bid high or go low etc etc., one will have extra information and just get them right too often.

Succesful crazy ass decisions could stem from opportunistic cheating like in some way having heard the perfect result on the actual board and then shooting it out. Your proposed rule would only challenge that, and only challenge it weakly imo.
April 14, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So why would anyone think it was lead directing, espeically with a pair that was signalling for leads?

Be careful not to assume what should be proven.
April 14, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dummy is not scary, so it is not like it must be either diamonds or hearts for partner.

Under those circumstances discouraging diamonds doesn't mean I like hearts.
April 9, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As long as they promise not to raise the majors to the 3- or 4- level.
April 8, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Smith is delayed until the defender's first unforced card, whether a discard or not. I have played like that for many years.
April 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dean

It is either/or. Either we are allowed to huddle without having a bridge problem or we are not. The rules say we are not.

The alternative to the current construction is to accept any random, misleading huddles. It would be a very different game.

I see 3 problems:

1) It would introduce a poker element, since all players would have to throw in random huddles for misleading purposes or suffer a big disadvantage. That would make the game slower and much less elegant.

2) Allowing random huddles would reduce or eliminate an important aspect of the game: To be a good card player we don't just need to play the right cards but also without giving away our hand with huddles. We need to duck smoothly etc - we need to be one step ahead at all times.

But if every lead towards KJ in dummy is followed by a long huddle (to protect equity when we might have had a problem with the ace) - what kind of unsophisticated game is that?

3) Random huddles will probably make the UI aspect (or even cheating) even more ugly and more difficult to rule and control.
April 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the version I have heard and read, declarer had a two-way guess for the queen and advanced the jack. When LHO played huddle-low, RHO refused to take his queen.
April 7, 2014
Michael Askgaard edited this comment April 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe, but they did display their shortages…
April 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No thanks to sitting for myself looking into a screen. I don't want to play a computer game, I want to play a social game of cards.
April 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Italy did, for some reason, pick the team they had the worst result against in the RR. I remember watching their struggle after having a disastrous start to the match trying for a comeback that almost succeded. But they fell back again at last.

Spinderbilt is held twice a year. Many teams are mostly unchanged for several cycles.

I want to avoid having the same matchings over and over again, when the top seeds prefer the same opponents that they preferred the last time. Why would they change preferences, if they won in comfort.
April 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, what a final nail in the coughin', this case has been.
April 3, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top