Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Peter Knee
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The correct reply, when asked about the 2NT bid, is to say that it asks for further description. It is wrong to say what your bid will mean.
Sept. 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not only should it be alerted, but it should never fall into the “delayed alert” category. It should be obvious that after the auction is over it is just too late for the other side to be able to make use of the information. Rather than falling under the category of negative inference, the pass may contain specific information vital to the opponents in the formation of a final contract.
April 18, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you decide that this is an opening hand, which I don't, then you should be willing to defend against some low-level contracts. In the actual hand, 2HX goes down two, there is not even a partscore at the 3-level for E/W. N/S have no 8-card fit anywhere. South was forced to bid a 3-card suit.
March 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
10
Feb. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Right guys. We like to be hard on those pick-up partnerships. Or… maybe we exercise common sense.
Jan. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is not in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. It is in the Tech Files in the last paragraph of CCGEN Page 5, CONVENTION CARDS. “A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions.”
Jan. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Players are required to have agreements in common auctions, which this certainly is. When a player is asked about his partner's bid, it is proper to say, Our agreement is…“ or ”I don't know.“. The worst thing to do is to say, ”I assume…“ or ”I think…“ or ”My interpretation is… “. This NEVER has a happy ending for anybody, least of all the director. It creates UI for partner and gives the opponents a myriad of 2-way shots: ”Gee, had I known that his assumption was wrong I would've done something different.“

If the answer ”I don't know" is given, the director does have the option of sending that person away from the table so that the 1NT bidder can be asked what the partnership agreement is.

This does not seem like a case for split scores.
Jan. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do play Flannery and find it very useful. As Flannery was invented to solve a bidding problem, it is not needed when holding a void (my partnership agreement). So I would bid 2NT, expecting partner to show a club fragment. Then, if my RHO doesn't double 3C, I would bid 3NT. If he does, I'd jump to 4D.
Jan. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe that all of you understand that the ethical thing to do (because of the UI from the tremor) is to bid 4 hearts.
It is truly unfortunate that many of you have experienced situations where the director does nothing to protect the non-offenders. I assure you that I am not one of them. Not only will I make a contract and/or a score adjustment, but I will also give a procedural penalty to players who know better for taking blatant advantage of UI. Many C players really don't know better, which is something that their teachers should have addressed, and in those cases I will attempt to educate as well as give a warning.
Jan. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed, a revoke is a mental error. It is not something that we would give a procedural penalty for.
Jan. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why on earth would you stop with giving procedural penalties for revokes? You could give procedural penalties for calling the wrong card from dummy, for misunderstanding your partner's bid, for mistakenly giving the wrong defensive signal, for miscounting trumps, ad infinitum. You could even start a new bridge league with your own law book.
Jan. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually the word “penalty” has been removed from Law 64. It is now considered “rectification”, even though application of the law sometimes results in penalizing the offenders.
Jan. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Absolutely adjust. John Adams gives the proper reasons. PP is automatic for Flight A pairs and for Flight B pairs that know better. Otherwise educate.
Jan. 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is amazing to me that so many of the players on this forum feel the need to hide their agreements from their opponents. The original auction given here was 1H - 1NT* - 2x - 2H. Both the opener and the responder have the agreement that this shows exactly 0-5 points and 3 hearts. The spirit of the alert procedure absolutely demands that 2H be alerted. As sportspersons and advocates of our game, you should subscribe wholeheartedly to this idea. As your opponent I would feel entitled to this without having to ask about your style.
Jan. 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a partnership agreement that is unusual enough that an alert should be required. In most partnerships the 2H bidder could have a doubleton heart and up to about 9 points. The 1H bidder knows that this cannot be the case, therefore the opponents need to be alerted.
Jan. 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The General Convention Chart disallows methods which are primarily used as destructive to opponent's methods. If this somehow does not qualify, then it must be pre-alerted because it is so unusual and unexpected.
Dec. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Could declarer be 1-7-5-0?With 3 spades and 7 so-so hearts, he might well support spades.
Dec. 29, 2015
Peter Knee edited this comment Dec. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes.
April 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Neal. Just looking for general consensus.
April 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kudos to Oren and John. They got this unusual problem exactly right.
Sept. 22, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top