Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Brian Bankler
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would assume that someone filed a recorder form against them.

For what it's worth, I've played a few rounds against Sam (in the Texas/Mex NAOPs) when he was playing a (different) highly unusual system. I found his (and partners) alerts and explanations to be precise, accurate and willing to answer in as much detail as you want.
July 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My German is non-existent, so I just used Google Translate.

Actually, one year at the Essen Game Fair a nice acquaintance agreed to translate a rules explanation on the fly from German to English so that I could participate in a demo game as the only non-German speaker. (For the modern classic game El Grande). At one point one of my opponents did something and I mustered up my scant German to point to the player aid (in German but also had a graphical representation of the relevant rule) and mutter “Verbotten”.

So, non-existent is an overbid, but a mild one.
July 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not sure what I'd do, but an “expert” partnership that doesn't have even a basic CC should not get any benefit of the doubt as to what their system is. So, therefore I'd rule that North mis-explained and – with a correct explination East would pass 2
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not in the USA article, but the Wikipedia page on Crane is saying they have a confession.
May 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I misread this as “Penn and Teller win the Imp Pairs.” No offense to Mssrs. Bright and Zeller, but I was really excited by that.
March 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is exactly what I was going to say. (Leaving off the second paragraph's tone).

If you'd asked during the auction LHO would say (in many more words) “undiscussed.” Unless you want to say that it was discussed (which is whole ‘nother kettle of worms), bad players made a bad bid against you and got away with it. Happens all the time in clubs. I’d just inform them that if they continue to have that agreement that it is alertable (if it is which seems unclear).

Half of playing in a club is like playing on a bad pool table and knowing which way the various parts tilt.
March 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This seems to me to be the same issue of “deliberate dumping” (DD) that the Bridge World often brings up. The rules of a tournament that mean you get a better result if you lose an intermediate match.

In this case you are dumping a single board to improve your overall results. DD is always a controversial discussion, and I expect no less from this.

The real difference is that in the DD, everyone can see the reason, but here you are ‘throwing’ a hand for a psychological reason. Also, you have no guarantee that your dump will help you. (Just a suspicion). I think those arguments make this less ethical than DD, no matter how you view DD.

As a practical matter: Kit's answer is correct. (This statement has probably been made quite often).
March 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I went with the majority in the poll, but there was some discussion as to what an expert field (instead of the club field) would do. I agree that this looks like a 4=6 hand.
Feb. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assuming you meant N bid the X with the hand shown, this is way too aggressive.

1) The hand is too weak.
2) There is no pre-emptive value. If you did this over 1H or 1D you'd at least take away some bidding space. Here you've added some.
3) There is no confusion added to the auction. The Opening bid has defined the hand narrowly. Again compare to 1H or 1D then 1NT (Raptor).
4) What few points there are are defensive.

In short, N is much more likely to give E-W a fielder's choice than win the auction or muck it up for them.
Jan. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing *this weekend* I heard the following two auctions by opponents (we're silent).

1-1;2-2;5-6

(This was not a success).

And a very simple one I'd never heard, but at least make sense.

2 (Flannery) - 6
Jan. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Deep mind press release seems pretty specific that this algorithm mainly applies to full information, deterministic systems.
Dec. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This article should be right up my wheelhouse (programmer with some knowledge but little practical experience with developing artificial opponents), but I gave up after several pages.

It seems to me that you are trying to use a constraint programming framework to figure out the hidden cards. I imagine that many programs do that, especially towards the endgame (presumably all bridge programs just switch to a double dummy program when all the hidden cards are known due to constraints).
Nov. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One of my friends was the (alleged) security for a strictly friendly & not at all illegal high stakes private poker game. But they apparently weren't private enough. Their schedule became known, and it became known that there were often five figures available on each table.

So, one day a gang raided them.

He answered the knock, opened the door and allowed the nice men with guns inside to take all the money.

Ever since then (25 years ago) I've occasionally wondered why it doesn't happen that often at tournaments. Granted, the risk/reward is better in an illegal venue that people don't want police at, but a regional is still a decent score.

My thoughts are:
1) hotel is likely going to have a more credible security force (not in terms of stopping the robbery, but in terms of providing loads of video evidence to the police).

2) The risk/reward is lower than a private poker game, and across the threshold for an organized gang. (The DA will take major heat if any of the individual players got robbed).

3) The less thoughtful thieves who are willing to take that risk (and who do rob liquor stores, etc) simply aren't aware its an option.
Nov. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is not at all clear to me that this is (or should be) a FP situation. In many of my partnerships it would not be and East's final double would just be “I wasn't kidding.” (One reason it may not be a FP – East could have bid 3 instead of 4).

Given how much variety there is in competitive styles, the last thing I would assume about an auction for an unknown partnership is when a force was on, unless it would be obvious to the LOLs two tables over.

That being said – since the option wasn't given the original poster may have thought it obvious that the force was on and just not stated it, and in that case you are obviously correct.
Nov. 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are missing the option: West should bid 5 when East doubles 4.
Nov. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Skynet works in mysterious ways….
Aug. 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Blasting 3N may very well work, even if you should go down.

But, If you want science, then bid 2 Asking. What does partner respond?

2 – I'd likely bid 3 (forcing) and see if partner can bid 3N. If not, I'd likely bid 4 and play the Moysian game. Actually the Moysian may be better in any case, but I'd still ask.

2 – 3N, expecting it to make. (Spades could still rail if partner has 4 dead, to be sure).

2N/3 – Both of these deny a 4 card major, but you should have stopper asking/showing sequences after this. (2N typically shows two side suits stopped, 3 shows one). In either case you bid 3 showing (presumably) a stopper and see if partner shows spades. (Over 2N-3, then 3M shows that + diamonds and 3N shows “Other two suits”. After 3C-3D partner will bid 3M with the stopper and 4C with diamonds).

If partner denies a stopper in spades I'll subside in 4C.

3 – This should be 4-6 decent hand. I'd bid 3 (assuming you show stoppers). if partner has a spade stopper you may be able to run many minor tricks. This could go down on hand 1 if partner has Kx x Axxx KQxxxx or some such and both aces are off. Oh well.

Higher responses depend on what you play.
Aug. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, since the NT hand went past 4S, it's a good hand, and should have a heart stop (4S ostensibly denied one), good trumps, DK. Axx/Axx/Kxx/Qxxx (shape varies). Maybe AKx/Axx/Kxx/xxx and just making an ‘impossible’ bid to show 3 keys.
Aug. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
IMO this is a 2 opening (a good 10 to bad 15ish, depending on tastes). 1 then rebid 2 is possible (which shows 4-5 or better either way in the minors) but I prefer the mildly pre-emptive nature of 2.

Of course that leaves the issue of the followup. Assuming partner bids 2 asking, I see two possibilities
* 2N – Good hand, lots of stoppers. Of course partner will assume a balanced hand, so you'll have to mix a diamond in with your hearts.
* 3 – 4-6 and towards the stronger side.

That to me seems closest, so my plan is 2 and respond to 2 with 3.

If you play that 2 is capped at 14 it starts to get close and depends on how you evaluate the hand. But my general rule is to try to open the most descriptive bid whenever possible. (But if you want to argue 2 is a mis-description because all the points are outside clubs, that's fair).

Under no circumstances would I open 1, planning on rebidding 2. This overstates the clubs and the points.
Aug. 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We started with The WJ05 book by K. Jassem, stripped out the non-ACBL compliant stuff, and tweaked from there.
Aug. 7, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
.

Bottom Home Top