Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Art Korth
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 53 54 55 56
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While we are at it, I want protection the next time I am playing hold 'em and some “player” beats my pocket aces with 95 offsuit.
3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I remember a missort of larger significance. I held a 3253 hand and opened 1NT. After my partner's response, I notices that both of my black suits were spades!
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do not understand why 3 is invitational + while 3 is less than invitational. I play these reversed (except that 3 is forcing). That allows opener to get out in 3 when appropriate.
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It might be illegal. It depends on whether the 1NT bid was a mechanical error or a mental error.
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I had led a spade from hand, I would usually say “low” or “follow” or “play” if I want to play the 8 from the dummy.

Yes, these designations are not letter-of-the-law correct, but they are fully understood by everyone to mean the lowest available card in the suit played.

If I were leading from the dummy, I would say “low spade.”
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Furthermore:

Law 73C (which is in a portion of the Laws which used to be referred to as the “Proprieties”) reads as follows:

C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner

1. When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information .

2. A penalty may be assessed against a player who violates C1, but if the opponents have been damaged, see also Law 16B3.

Note that Law 73C1 refers back to Law 16B1(a) and that Law 73C2 refers back to Law 16B3. So it would be a stretch to conclude that Law 73 gives a TD any authority independent of Law 16B to deal with the use of unauthorized information received from a partner.
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Max:

I understand your concern. However, when there is a law which states what can and cannot be done in the presence of unauthorized information, it would be wrong to go beyond the letter of that law unless that law specifically gives the TD additional authority to deal with hard cases.

In this case, Law 16B specifically sets forth what can and cannot be done in the presence of unauthorized information.

The relevant portion of Law 16B is as follows:

B. Extraneous Information from Partner

1. Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized. This includes remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected alerts or failures to alert, unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or mannerism.

(a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative.

(b) 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.

The language of Law 16B specifically prohibits a player from making “a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative.” It does NOT prohibit a player from choosing some other call. Given that Law 16B provides the specific means for addressing the use of unauthorized information received from partner, no other law comes into play.

The shorter version of this post would be that the specific controls over the general.
Dec. 14
Art Korth edited this comment Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
These simulation results do not determine which is the best choice at matchpoints. In those cases that both 4 and 5 make, 4 is equal or better (depending on overtricks). Similarly with 3NT.
Dec. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You might have a better idea of the opening style if you read the OP carefully. I spelled out that the opening bid promised 10+HCP (and some 9 counts). ALL 10 counts are opened 1 of a suit (or a 10-13 1NT). 9 counts that are too good for a weak 2 bid are also opened with 1 of a suit. And by “too good for a weak 2 bid” I mean the hand has a pulse. All (and I mean ALL) 3-9 HCP hands with a 5 card suit (other than clubs) are opened with a weak 2 bid. For example, this hand is a typical nonvul weak 2 bid:

xx xxxxx Kxx Jxx

Now, you may criticize this opening style. That is OK. But it is what we do, and it is part of the conditions of this problem.

Personally, I don't feel that either my partner nor I did anything wrong on this hand. We were very unlucky to go down at the 5 level on a hand that has good play for 6 and to have our opponents stop at 4. But I posted the problem to get opinions about the auction, and I got them.

Thanks, all.
Dec. 13
Art Korth edited this comment Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree that West cannot pass out 3. Double is the winning action. 3 will also work.
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, if you want to go through the details:

1. North has shown a balanced hand with less than the strength to open 1NT (or some other reason not to open 1NT).
2. North has shown 5 diamonds.
3. North has denied a second biddable suit.
4. North has denied spade support.

In other words, 1NT and 3 were natural.
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assuming that the 2 artificial game force is XYZ, then 3 is natural, denying 3 spades.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
North might bid the same way. North's had is pretty good. The response to RKCB would then determine how high we go.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Linda: 3NT shows an unspecified void. Responder can ask with 4.

@Buddy: We open 2NT on all balanced or semi-balanced hands with 18-20, even if they include a 5 card major (but not 5-4 or 4-5 in the majors). A 2NT opening may have a singleton if opener decides that the hand otherwise merits a 2NT opening. Otherwise, the maximum 1 bid is up to a strong 2 opening, which is defined as a hand where opener does not want to see it go All Pass.
Dec. 11
Art Korth edited this comment Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And if spades were 2-2 and the opponents bid it, what would you say then?
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I will address both questions.

First, there are other responses which show a stronger hand. So, for example, a 3 response to 3 would show a balanced or semi-balanced non-minimum, a 3NT response would show a 18-20 HCP hand, typically 5422 in that order, as we open 2NT on most other balanced or semi-balanced 18-20 HCP hands, and 4 of a new suit would show 55 or better. But, yes, a non-minimum in this context is everything more than a minimum up to a strong 2 opening.

Keep in mind that responder is forcing to game opposite a possible 9 count, so responder has to have some significant values.

As for why 3 and not 2NT? 2NT is a different type of raise. It shows (1) a mini-splinter; or (2) a full splinter; or (3) a strong NT type hand with 3 card support; or (4) a strong NT type hand with 4 or 5 card support. When non-vul, the range of the strong NT type responding hands is 17-19.

Our direct splinters are void splinters, so the full splinter using the 2NT bid first shows a singleton.

Given that I had a singleton A, showing a splinter did not appeal to me. I thought it would be more productive if I asked about partner's hand using the 3 call than showing my hand using the 2NT call.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Posters - please note that our minimum opening bid is 10 HCP (even some 9s). So, while this hand is certainly a minimum (maybe even a subminimum) for many solid citizens, that is not the stated Conditions of Contest.

So South would have a “full” opening bid if the K were the 2.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I will try to explain seeding in pair games in a slightly different manner than previous posters have done.

Seeding the field by spreading the better pairs evenly through the field is done in an attempt to make the strength of the field in each section roughly equivalent. It would be unfair in several ways if a sizable number of the better pairs were all located in one section.

Ideally, the “seeded pairs” are distributed throughout the field in a manner that the better pairs in each section play each other.

In team events, the teams are seeded so that the “better” teams do not play each other in the early rounds.
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Speaking as a lawyer who does math problems, I would point out that:

1. Assuming that you are correct that the chance of 3+ spades in partner's hand is 54%; and
2. Assuming that you are correct that the chance of 4+ diamonds in partner's hand is 34%;

it does not follow that the chance of one of these occurring is 70+%.

If these two occurrences were independent of each other, it would be true that the chance of one or the other occurring would be approximately 70% (assuming that the odds of each event occurring are 54% and 34%, respectively). 54% + (34% of 46%) is about 70%. But they are not independent of each other. The fact that partner's hand DOES NOT contain at least 3 spades improves the odds of partner having at least 4 diamonds; and, similarly, the fact that partner's hand DOES NOT contain at least 4 diamonds improves the odds that he has at least 3 spades. On the other hand, it is also true that partner will have both 3+ spades and 4+ diamonds more than zero percent of the time. Given this last point, it is clear that the chance of partner having one or the other holding is not as high as the chance of either occurring independently of the other, as there is some double-counting.

It is certainly true that the chance of partner having either 3+ spades or 4+ diamonds is at least as good as partner having 3+ spades. So, if you are right about your 54% figure, then the chances of partner having one or the other holding must be higher than 54%.

EDIT: Assuming the accuracy of Bernard's figures, below, it stands to reason that the chances of partner having 4+ diamonds if he does not have 3+ spades is higher (as I mentioned) and is not equal to 34% of 46%, as it would be if these possibilities were independent of each other. So I don't dispute that the chances of either happening would be higher than 70%.
Dec. 8
Art Korth edited this comment Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would do more than file a player memo. I would requests a C & E committee.

The fact that you asked after the hand and got no answer is the issue here.

Why did you not follow up upon getting no answer to your question?

By the way, while the correction period may be over and your score can't be changed, it may still be possible to have the opponent's score changed. If anyone knows the answer to that question, please reply.
Dec. 5
Art Korth edited this comment Dec. 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 53 54 55 56
.

Bottom Home Top