Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wayne Burrows
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How is this different than the option above in the poll?
Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Disagree with your opening sentence. In response to what 3 shows you can say “11-15 hcp with four or more clubs” and possibly some other inferences whether or not you know others play it differently.
Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I admit that there is an ambiguity in the words I used.
Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I asked a follow up question. I got abused by the opponents. I called the director. The director got them to repeat their explanations which was “clubs”. The director asked me if I was satisfied. I said “no” and he asked again and I still said “no”. Then there were more disparaging comments from the opponents and the director chimed in on the abuse towards me.

The game is in very poor hands when experienced pairs think that it is fine to give almost no information about their bids. I mean I knew that 3C was clubs on the assumption that it was not alerted. I really should not have to tell the opponents what I want to know as that gives information about what I think my problem is on the hand. They should just answer the question in a straight forward manner.

After the abuse I misdefended the hand (twice) and they probably got a top. I hope that they are satisfied with their abuse of the rules to make like difficult for the opponents.
Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David in addition in many places three card suits are considered natural and you might not be told that could be held systemically unless you ask.
Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The opening post begun with “In the play …”

Imagine a defender wanted to know precisely what 3C showed - 4 or 5 clubs as Frances explained or maybe fewer and whether or not extra strength has been shown as others have alluded to.

A defender might want to know this information in order to decide on an appropriate defence. It is usually a losing option to play declarer for something that they cannot hold.
Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That illustrates another thing that is wrong with the way polls are run.

Also defining peers by the number of masterpoints and not how they think about the game is an abomination.
Aug. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you are mistaken Andy.

1. It is not unlawful for their to be overlap in a system.

2. There is no obligation on me that the opponents understand. Law 21 A covers this “No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding.”

If my explanation accurately coveys our methods and you make an additional assumption then it is your own misunderstanding not a problem with the explainer.

Similarly if my explanation accurately conveys our methods and you otherwise misunderstand then that is your problem not mine.
July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Then you need to agree another method to make a forcing raise. There are many options available.
July 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Reasonably standard after 1NT 2C 2S is to use 3H as a generic slam invite.

I do not see why we can't do that here.

1D 1S 1NT 2C 2S 3H is not needed for anything else if opener bids up the line in response to 2C checkback.
July 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Spades 3-2 is 68% which is already greater than 2/3. Stiff jack is 1/5 of 4-1s which is nearly another 5%. So that is nearly 3/4.

The lead from AQ…, Ax…, Qxx…, xxx… are not equally likely.

I would say the lead from AQ is unlikely but you will always go right.

The lead from Ax… is much less likely than from Qxx and you will almost 100% go right from the latter and almost certainly go wrong from the former.

And of course you will always go wrong from xxx.

In all I think you have underestimated the chances.
July 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And the spade queen.

But no club control.
July 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wouldn't bid 2NT if it shows 18-19 especially with the singleton heart flaw. Richard what is your range?
July 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gwynn the problem with not recording is that the information is lost forever.

I look forward to a day where every bid and play is recorded and we can see who these players are and most importantly whether or not they always land on their feet with these offbeat actions.

I agree off-centre actions occasionally scoring is to be celebrated but the purpose of recording is so that someone can potentially determine with the scores are occasional or routine. And if routine then if the method cannot be justified as sound then we have something suspicious.
July 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What precisely were your constraints for a balanced hand?
July 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I really want to know more about 2. In particular what is excluded because west did not double 1?
July 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What would you bid?
July 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think we need a definition of non-maths types when the non-math explanation begins “There are 8 diamonds.”
July 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The irony. The attempt to get to seven with 5NT led to the failing of the small slam.
July 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marty I think you conflate disclosure with knowing every intracacy of the system. If disclosure really means the latter then everyone needs to do more. Moreover my experience it is the players playing more standard methods who more often hide behind inadequate disclosure.

For example players who do not adequately explain which hands they open 1C and 1D; or players who don't disclose their frequent upgrading tendencies especially into 1NT. From what I hear this lack of disclosure extends into some very good players who I have heard comments from their opponents in international events like “they never have what they say” - sure that is likely hyperbole but if their competitors are having problems because they say they have 15-17 and they frequently have 12 or 13 or whatever then that is a much bigger problem than this method which is disclosed in detail on the card.

There maybe some improvements to the description of 1C but it seems that some unfortunate director's advice may have made the explanations more brief than desirable rather than anything that needs recorder attention.
July 27
.

Bottom Home Top