Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wayne Burrows
1 2 3 4 ... 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 ... 62 63 64 65
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“If South had the ace of diamonds, he would have doubled. His failure to double denies holding the ace of diamonds.”

The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

If this is the agreement for NS then you might have a case. But such an agreement has not been established.

Until there is evidence of such an agreement then simply counting tricks means that the appreciable chance of partner having the A cannot be overlooked. I estimate a priori that the odds of partner having the diamond ace given the bidding having shown west to be void in diamonds or with the ace to be at least 10-15% and when other factors like Levin surely want to allow an unlimited partner some room after Blackwood or even at 4 to show additional values then the probability of the A is much higher.
Dec. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The word bird* has always been ambiguous since the laws defined it to not be a pass double or redouble. People still say “it is your bid” for example when you have no intention of bidding.

*bid
Dec. 4, 2018
Wayne Burrows edited this comment Dec. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Clocks would help.

Any time needs to be dependent on the context. For example slam decisions are reasonably likely to take more time.
Dec. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit this is not an auction to be passive. The opponents have long suits in spades and hearts of unknown length. They probably have either a double fit or wests hearts are solid. You have two and three small. This is a minimum of 10 tricks and quite possibly more as dummy has additional tricks for 7nt. Plus assuming they have two aces then almost always this is 13 runners.

However the person who bid 7nt explicitly denied the dA and his partner did not promise it.

Seriously it is lying down to die to not lead a diamond on this auction.
Dec. 4, 2018
Wayne Burrows edited this comment Dec. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Jim: 3 is irrelevant. It occurred after the infraction, and can never negate the infraction. ”

No it did not. A tempo break is not an infraction.
Dec. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“The so-called AI was merely an articulation of the UI S was providing.”

Nevertheless comments by the opponents are AI.
Dec. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“When a suspicion turns into a certainty, thanks to partner's tempo, the laws force you into considering alternative actions.”

Actually they don't, well not under the conditions you state. You need an additional condition that there are no logical alternatives.
Dec. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“You are arguing that the comment suddenly makes the information authorized. It does not!”

The comment is authorised information. It will affect the logical alternatives.
Dec. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would say more like “an auction where partner shouldn't have the ♦A, but might if he has made a thoughtless bid.”

Is that how you build up your partner?
Dec. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Chris there is a huge problem with appeals or reviews or whatever they are being decided much later than when the problem occurred.

I had this in a minor tournament of about eight, eight board matches and the director did not even tell us of her decision from an issue in match 2 until after the end of play for the whole tournament.

More recently in a National event in New Zealand we had a problem with a grand slam as you did. It swung 30 IMPs - 15 out to 15 in. Our problem was with a claim not UI. Declarer claimed 13 tricks at trick one with only 12 top tricks. But the director who looked at the board said there were an obvious 13 tricks on a squeeze. There were thirteen tricks on a squeeze. The problem was that there was a red suit squeeze, or a black suit squeeze, or spade heart squeeze etc and some double squeezes that were possible to play for on the hand. Only some of the squeezes worked. Depending on the order of cards played before declarer realised there were only 12 tricks he might have had to give up one or more menaces. On review I convinced the director that the squeeze was not always working and he reversed his decision. But that is not the end of the problem …

Afterwards, I said to him it is really important to get those decisions right at the time. It is unfair to the field to suddenly ‘gift’ one pair 30 IMPs after the tournament is over. In this case it was a Swiss draw so not only was the result affected but draws for all subsequent rounds were affected. As it happened we had relatively tough draws despite being down the field multiple places from where we should have been and did not capitalise on the luck of the bad ruling. But it would have been really awkward if after the event we had been lifted from out of contention into the first place based on a ruling that should have been made several rounds earlier.
Dec. 4, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Craig the laws do not require polls. The laws define a logical alternative:

“A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the
partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select. ”

Polls are a method that directors have decided to use to determine logical alternatives.

As I see it the problem is that for whatever reason they do not take forming the poll very seriously. Almost every poll I have been involved with as a pollee I have just been asked what would I bid in a particular situation. I have not been told what the methods are or any other relevant information unless I have asked, which normally I do.

Similarly, the most recent ruling against me that was made based on a poll in a slam auction the director did not make any attempt to ask what our methods were and so the pollees could not possibly have made a judgement based on the methods of our partnership. At the appeal the chairman of the committee in asking me questions kept coming up with example hands that were inconsistent with our methods.

If directors are going to use polls to determine logical alternatives then there needs to be very clear protocols on how those polls are conducted otherwise there will inevitably be many dissatisfied customers.

Sending untrained people to gather a small sample to be used to determine a statistical likelihood is almost never and only by accident going to satisfy with any acceptable level of confidence of the requirements of the logical alternative definition in the laws.

Another example, I was once told the results of a poll by a National Director and that she was going to let a result stand. When I pointed out that she had miscalculated and the poll results did not meet the threshold in the local regulation, her response was not to change her decision but to say she would go and poll a few more people.

Polls of sample size six are almost worthless. Say we have a population of 100 - just for argument sake and we need a threshold of lower than 10% then from a poll of six people we would get more than 10% (one or more person) around half of the time when the actual numbers were close to the 10% threshold.

Polls the way they are conducted are simply not a good enough method to reliably determine whether something is a logical alternative.
Dec. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Or even uncertainty about the meaning.
Dec. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is safe against 7nt.
Dec. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Amy except that in many cases north will have dKQ or similar and a diamond would be normal.
Dec. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The obvious construction is solid hearts KQJxx AKQJx etc. Now you can count ten major suit tricks. So two aces and a singleton makes 13. Solid hearts are needed because east might have xxx or Axx for this bidding.
Dec. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whether or not it is blatantly obvious that west was void is different than it is blatantly obvious to lead a diamond.

A 10% or 20% chance of a void might make it obvious to lead a diamond but equally make it ludicrous to put in the ten.
Dec. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Amy, I am not going to hold my breath.
Dec. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“That ace is going to be diamonds. ”

This is not demonstrable from the information of the slow pass.

A player holding any ace that did not match their agreement for double might pass slowly as might a player who is unsure that a double might misdirect partner to the wrong suit.
Dec. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Kit, where I come from a void is a nice substitute for an Ace, when playing a suit contract. I guess you top quality players see things differently? I’m glad I’m not bad enough to be a top quality player like that.”

All true except that I keep reminding one partner that I have never won a trick with a void.

And that is the error that Joe Grue made.
Dec. 3, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Equally if double of 7NT promises something else then pass does not deny an ace.

Also if you are unsure whether double might promise something else then pass might not deny an ace if you are scared from deflecting partner unnecessarily.

I have been in the situation where my partner doubled 7NT and I led the suit which I thought she was requesting (Lightner) and I did not find her ace. She would have been better off to pass - I might then have led to her ace and would not have led the Lightner suit.
Dec. 3, 2018
1 2 3 4 ... 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 ... 62 63 64 65
.

Bottom Home Top