Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Robin Hillyard
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 87 88 89 90
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many good comments by others already. But look at it this way: you and partner need to have an agreement about this. Unless you have a special discussion about something, you would normally stick to “standard” practice. In this case, standard practice is that if you jump over a preempt you are showing a (very?) good hand and a (very?) good suit.

I wouldn't advise it (for all the reason already mentioned), but if you and a partner want to have a different meaning, then go ahead and see how it works out.
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That might indeed be an interesting poll. But it isn't this poll :)
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe that part of the issue here is that the OP asks two separate questions but only gives us one opportunity to answer. I answered the question that was posed immediately before the poll. I did not address any question of automatic penalties (the first question).
8 hours ago
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What kind of event was this where the other nine tables were all in exactly 6NT? Nobody in game, nobody else in 6, and nobody in a grand.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
West did not win the first revoke trick but his side did win a subsequent trick so that's one trick to N/S. However, West revoked again, and this time he did win the trick. So that's a two-trick penalty.
Oct. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Monty, do you have any evidence that Chris' PR are “pretty much the same” as the NGS? That's not my impression at all. I believe the PR is deeply flawed for several reasons, including the ones cited by Dan Jablonski. What particularly makes me laugh is the fact that the huge volatility of the system is actually extolled as a virtue. We have, for example, in the “Most improved” listing a solid flight A player who has been playing at a high level for decades. Do we seriously think that this person has suddenly acquired new talents at the bridge table? No, of course not. It is the excessive volatility that is to blame.
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great minds think alike. Or should we add Fools never differ ;)
Oct. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, I agree. I've seen it too, though.
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Problem is that I'm hoping to win a trick with the A. I'll be faced with choosing another bad lead then. That's why I think A is right. If I lost a trick because on opening lead because declarer has Kx, then at least I won't be losing a second trick on my next lead.
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice to know that there was a time when common courtesy and respect reigned at the sports field.
Oct. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, who would play that? 1NT-3 showing hearts? How would it be different to 1NT-2 etc.?
Sept. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hmmm!
Sept. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, it doesn’t bug me nearly as much as, for example, gloating after a good result!
It’s certainly not enough to make me stay home and watch the Patriots ;)
Sept. 23
Robin Hillyard edited this comment Sept. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But does the word “disconcerting” include the eliciting of a tell? That might be a side-effect but surely deliberately disconcerting an opponent is more about making them feel bad, inferior, hopeless, upset, etc. which you hope results in them playing less well.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I read it, the OP is asking a hypothetical question–not trying to get a conviction in a court of law.
Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the point of Barry's comment (forgive me if I'm wrong) is that OP made two questionable actions: first was not to alert an alertable bid; second was to use his partner's gesture, tempo, mannerism, etc.–i.e. UI–in determining his own action. Now, why does the first point matter? Because if OP had alerted 3 as weak; and then raised it (showing a very good hand), it's very likely that the director would have been called after the play. In other words, the lack of OP's alert may have been part of a cover-up.

I'm not asserting any of this to be true–just pointing out that Barry's comment has validity.
Sept. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A little background to this question. The voting currently stands at Double: 16, Pass: 21. After a slow start, double is catching up.

The auction ended at 5CX and the result was down 2 (although, double-dummy it could be down 1). Indeed, the par result is 5CX-1 (or 5DX-1) as N/S can indeed make game in either major.

As you might possibly have guessed, there was a BIT after 5C. About a minute, so all at the table were aware of it. We lost this KO by a lot more than this board (we lost 9 here when our teammates were -100 at the other table). I was dummy (W) and left it up to my partner to call (or not) the director. He didn't and that's just fine.Without the double, we still lose 5 IMPs.

But I was curious what other experts might have done in the North seat. South did say explicitly that 3C did not put them in a force over 5C.
Sept. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think he means the four suits, seven numbers, pass, double, redouble and no-trump.
Aug. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why these particular doubles? Having exceptions defeats the purpose of the OP. All doubles are potentially surprising to some people.
Aug. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I hadn't really spotted that one, Barry. You're right, although your reaction is OTT as usual, IMHO. After an opening that shows a balanced hand in a certain range, it's reasonable to expect a suit bid at the two-level to be “to play” (non-forcing). I think the OP is on the right track to try to simplify things and reduce the number of exceptions. OTOH, maybe it's simpler (as OP suggests) to make all two-level responses to 1NT alertable/announceable because that would cover all situations then.
Aug. 26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 87 88 89 90
.

Bottom Home Top