Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Andy Bowles
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 113 114 115 116
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd bid 2 on KJxx xxx xxx xxx or K10xxx xxx xx xxx. (I don't know why I want that 10, but I tried removing it and then it didn't look like a 2 bid any more.)

If opener had passed over 2, I'd play 3 as forcing. I just want it to be non-forcing (or at least non-strong) in this auction because we may have to judge whether to compete to 3 or 4 over their 3. And with a strong hand we have several other actions available - double, 3, 4, 4.

In fact, it may not matter whether we play this as forcing or not. The opponents seem to be forced to 3, so it appears that I can bid 3 and still get another go if I want it.
14 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The original post says “You have no other face cards.” So if you have xxxxx, you have 0 HCP.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wasn't imposing my methods, I was responding to the poll.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 is non-forcing and 4 doesn't exist.
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, that would still be an idiot.

The table in Law 2 doesn't tell us that Board 6 will be played after Board 5, or indeed that Board 6 will be played at all.
July 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There are two offences, one by each side.

Putting the board on the table the wrong way around is a minor offence. People do it all the time, and it doesn't cause any harm or significant inconvenience. It doesn't merit a procedural penalty.

The player who opened the bidding breached Law 17B, which reads “The player designated by the board as dealer makes the first call.” There is a prescribed rectification for this (Law 31B), so we apply that.

Could the player who misplaced the board have known that it might cause an opponent to open out of turn? No. Only an idiot would open the bidding without looking to see if the board made him dealer. You are entitled to assume that your opponents are not idiots. Hence I would not make a Law 72C adjustment.
July 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's irrelevant whether the agreement is good bridge or not. The purpose of alerting is to ensure that your opponents know what your bids mean.

It's a common agreement to bid 1-1;1NT holding four spades. The opponents will be aware of this possibility, so if they want to know they can ask. Hence an alert is unnecessary.

It's a very uncommon agreement to bid 1;1NT holding six spades. The opponents will not be aware of this possibility, so they are unlikely to ask. Hence an alert is necessary.

It's a fairly uncommon agreement to bid 1;1NT holding six spades. If I had this agreement, I would make sure that the opponents knew about it. I might do this at the end of the auction, or I might just ignore the rules and alert it at the time that it's bid.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It shows the black suits, probably 5-5. It can't be particularly strong, because we would have acted on the first round.
July 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps you should just accept this as a cost of your methods. You can offset the IMPs lost here against all the IMPs you've gained from playing Kickback on other deals.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marshall, nobody has suggested that declarer said “usually five”.

The player who made the explanation asserts that he said “Usually at least four”. Every experienced player in the world would interpret that as meaning “… but sometimes three”.

The player who received the explanation asserts that declarer just said the equivalent of “at least four”.

This is a very easy thing to rule on if you know the facts. If he said “Usually at least four”, the explanation is correct and there is no damage, so no adjustment or penalty. If he said “At least four”, you adjust the score and fine him.

The difficult part is knowing what the facts are, since we have conflicting statements from the players, and apparently in the directing staff changed its mind about what was said.

What I don't understand at all is the decision to adjust the score but not penalise South. If the directing staff found that the explanation was “Usually at least 4”, then for what reason was the score adjusted?
July 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, we won't always know what partner's club holding is, but so what? Partner knows that we won't always be able to read his signal, but that shouldn't stop him trying to signal.

9 is discouraging, because that's what our methods say it is. If partner's hand is such that the best he can do on the last diamond is to discard another club from an original 962, then he has a choice of cards to play. We could, I suppose, agree that in this type of situation he just chooses one at random, and hopes that we have enough information to work out what to do. Or we could agree that he uses these two cards to signal something useful.

I agree with Phillip that it will often be useful to give count with the second discard, but on this deal, with a side-entry in dummy, it's hard to see how count in clubs can be useful.
July 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner also gave suit-preference for hearts when he threw 2 rather than his higher remaining club.
July 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But we do have other information - we have the auction. With a heart void LHO might have bid something over 3. Hence he's more likely to have Qxx.
June 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peter, the term “clean out the Augean Stables” usually implies that there is actual corruption to address. Is that what you intended to imply?
June 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, that's just another example of sportsmanlike dumping. Unsportsmanlike dumping is when you play badly in order to help a friend.
June 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If there is no regulation or instruction that makes EW responsible for checking the score, then they're not responsible for checking the score. They should not be penalised for failing to carry out a responsibility that was not theirs.
June 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peter, are you saying that the scenario you describe has actually happened somewhere? If so, where and when?
June 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For determining who is at fault? Yes, the regulation or instruction that requires EW to check what was entered in the BridgeMate.
June 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think 7D is at all relevant. Checking the score entered in the BridgeMate does not fall into the category “maintaining proper conditions of play”.
June 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“There was also the clue that the scores were shown on the Bridgemates. That strongly suggests a club game.”

Or a World Championship, European Championship, or English national event.
June 27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 113 114 115 116
.

Bottom Home Top