Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wayne Burrows
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Perhaps. But we remark here that it is no defence for A to a charge of being a bandit that B, C and D are also bandits.”

It may not be a defence but it may also be evidence that A is being discriminated against.
July 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wayne - I can work that out in 3 minutes seeing a written description of the system. I can't work that out in 30 seconds, especially when not allowed to take written notes.

I do not think that disclosure means that the opponents need to have a full understanding. Some of the understanding comes from the ability to work these things out on the fly.
July 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Frankly, I don't see why the legality of a system is a recorder issue.

Nor in this case if Michael and Sam's claims are true is disclosure a recorder issue - I allude to them having talked to directors at National tournaments.

To put it another way there is a serious problem with the system if a pair or player disclose a system and speak with directors about precisely to disclose their system and then a complaint about their ethics is entertained by the recorder.
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Come on Marty.

The hands that are opened with 10-14 other than 1C are in plain sight:

not 10-11 with a major which are opened 1M
not the relevant 1NT range
not 5M suitable for 2C or 2H

that is pretty clear and should be easily understood.
July 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
More over it is well known that any optimum either occurs at a local optimum inside the allowed region or on the boundary. That is going to encourage people to experiment at the boundary.
July 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There seems to be a gulf between “shortness in the opener's suit” and “any hand with minimal opening values”.

Clearer definitions are required. Like many things it is the boundaries that are important but this advice seems to obscure those boundaries.
July 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was the information that the 6c bidder was unsure about 3s available at the table? If it was it points to doubling.
July 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In order to define off-shape you need to define what is not off-shape. I frequently double 1S for example with 3=4=2=4 and similar but I would have no idea whether that was intended by the term off-shape.

It really is an unproductive exercise to regulate judgement. Good judgement is rewarded by the score and bad judgement punished by the same score.
July 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do not understand how it makes any sense to jump most of two levels of bidding to tell partner we have a three (or fewer) cards in a suit. Sure I understand it shows other things too. But the ambiguity between 6=2 and 5=5 in my two suits seems too much to deal with sensibly.
July 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do not understand pass. I have tricks in three suits and partner is known to have at least four cards in the other. Sure partner might have nothing but he also might have some useful values.
July 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner will almost never double 5 if you pass. There is some chance to hear double if you double.
July 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't pass 2.
July 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Willing to open first seat but won't always. I won't open second unless desperate.
July 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No dQJ would be better.
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wondered about bidding 3c and hoping for a splinter raise.
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I will take my two aces to go with our A and K and heart ruff.
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not convinced that I want to shade the values for 2. Ultimately though that should be a matter for partnership agreement.
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mostly attitude is suggesting but not commanding a defence.

It can be insisting on a switch. It can be showing a key honour typically for entry purposes.

Here the ambiguity for west is that south has 2=2=4=5 with xx AK KQxx KJxxx or some hands with fewer clubs.

If south has five clubs then there are five diamonds four clubs and two hearts so you must switch to spades. Fewer than five clubs and the spades or equivalent cannot run away.

There are a couple of clues that argue against the 2245 scenario. The first is not that strong but some players might not open 1NT with two small spades and this shape. Obviously some will.

The second is that if that is the shape then since you have A9xx then declarer has just blocked the clubs and/or the diamonds by leading low away from QTx. This blockage has been created even if declarer has four clubs. Therefore I think you should play declarer for three clubs either Jxx or KJx. Now there are only 9 tricks at most and no urgency to switch to spades whatever partner's signal. If declarer has the cK then there are 9 tricks and without that card then you have two hearts two clubs plus partner's hoped for sA.

Also with long clubs and running diamonds most declarers would play immediately on clubs rather than the odd play of three rounds of diamonds creating communication problems.

It is less clear what partner should have discarded. A low spade might deflect the defence later (if declarer has the cA) and a high high spade did deflect the defence. A club seems wrong and a heart cuts communication if declarer ducks the next heart.
July 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't want my partner playing the J without strong preference for diamonds here.
July 17
.

Bottom Home Top