Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Brian Platnick
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael,

I agree with you almost 100%. In the OP, my view is declarer would take 12 tricks even though he had AKTx instead of AKJx. Again, if the defenders call the director who ruled down 1, I think that is reasonable and have no sympathy for declarer. However if the Diamonds were AKJx, ruling down 1 feels a bit harsh.
Oct. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael,

As I stated initially, on this particular hand, I would concede 12 tricks. However if someone else thought differently, called the director, and the ruling was down 1, I would have zero sympathy for the declarer.

What do you think about this example:

Dummy: x AKQJ Qxxx Qxxx
Declarer: AKQJT987 xxx Ax void

In 7S, declarer wins the diamond lead with the ace and says, “I will take 9 spade tricks, then the AKQ of hearts.”

Or what if in the OP, declarer had AKJx of diamonds? I’m guessing you would concede in either of these 2 cases (would you?) Even though declarer only had AKTx of diamonds, I would equate this to my examples above and concede.

Now let’s change the OP in a different way. One opponent has Jxxx of diamonds and the King of hearts (and would be squeezed). Some people argue that declarer would always stumble into the squeeze. I think that’s nuts - down 1 seems automatic to me.

An even simpler hand for a declarer who didn’t claim: East has Jxxxx of diamonds so after cashing the Ace and Queen, there is a marked finesse. Again I would rule down one.

The distinction for me is something like, “even if paying no attention to the opponents cards, would declarer still take the number of tricks claimed?” In the OP, I think so.
Oct. 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, to answer your question, “how far do you carry this “mercy”?

Not very far. If declarer makes a bad claim, I assume they forgot a card, had a blackout, or are confused in some way about the hand. But In this particular case, my judgment is that even the confused declarer will take 12 tricks.
Oct. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Michael, however on this hand as a defender I would just concede the 12 tricks. But if someone called the director who ruled down one, I would have zero sympathy for the declarer.
Oct. 18, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ACBL is constantly criticized here, but they deserve a lot of credit for their handling of FN.

http://web2.acbl.org/discipline/CurrentlyUnderDisciplineList.pdf
Sept. 21, 2018
Brian Platnick edited this comment Sept. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David,

Agree with Matt Smith that you should disclose to opponents your agreement about swinging. However, I have never had an opponent disclose anything to me in this situation.

I once had an opponent, who is one of the most honest, ethical players in the world (in a match we were losing by 70+ imps) ask if we had discussed any “swinging” strategies as a team or as a pair. I gave the honest answer: no. Until then, I never really thought about this issue.

This made me wonder if it is better to discuss strategies that you should disclose or have new discussion and thus no disclosure requirement.
Aug. 27, 2018
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree. Then south gambled that partner had one more club or diamond and one fewer heart. Unlucky.
Aug. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With the first hand, he would likely play a diamond at trick 2.
June 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With the second hand, declarer would just pull trumps and claim instead of leading a spade
June 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John,

Adam has been a teammate of mine many times and an opponent many more times. His deportment at the table as well as his ethics are second to none. While Adam may view this as a consequence of his politics, my experience is different. I have seen no evidence that one’s political ideology is related to one’s behavior at the bridge table.

As long as we are providing object links to objectivism, here is another:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_8m8cQI4DgM
June 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I trust partner, passing seems routine.

If partner hesitated, I would assume there is a better contract than 3NT.
June 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On the first board, if the lead is not a singleton, 4H makes if either heart honor is onside.
May 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What am I missing ?

The jack of spades.
May 22, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What about 5-1 hearts and west holding HH8 of diamonds (if East had followed low)
Or East with H8 of Diamonds?
May 19, 2018
Brian Platnick edited this comment May 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Phillip,

You said, “… I abstained because I was instructed to bid 7NT if I didn't like the 2♦ bid, whereas I would prefer to be able to answer the problem regardless of whether I liked the 2♦ bid or not.”

and, “… I am willing to accept the bid as given and answer the problem–and object to the fact that the wording of the problem prohibits me from doing so.”


If I follow your logic, you are saying

(1) The wording of the problem forces you to choose 7NT since you don't like 2D.

(2) You would prefer to just answer the problem given the 2D bid that you wouldn't have made but the wording of the problem prevents you from doing so.

(3) Rather than choose 7NT as instructed by the problem, you chose to abstain.

Conclusion: You feel it is ok to ignore the wording/instructions of the problem by choosing to abstain instead of 7NT, but not to choose something like pass, 3NT or 3D.

Obviously the reason for your illogical stance is to protest problems worded this way. Since I enjoy reading your comments, how about a less dogmatic approach. Instead of reading the words literally, assume the problem is written something like, “If you find the previous actions to be so ridiculous that you feel you can't answer this problem, then please choose 7NT.”

Or better yet, ignore the instruction completely, answer the problem and discuss the rest of the auction in the comments.
May 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Barry,

I know this wasn’t your question, but since you alerted 2D, it doesn’t seem reasonable for your opponents to assert:

“with six diamonds, said he would have bid 3♦ over 2♠ had he known what was going on.”
May 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry,

Did you alert the 2D bid by partner?
May 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“do they really have to say I'm running the clubs and if they don't break I'm cashing my 9 winners”

Yes.


I claim to speed things up, Poor claims like this slow things down. The other current thread about claims is completely different (7NT, club lead gives declarer 13th trick).

My policy when an opponent claims without properly stating a line is to accept as long as declarer should actually take the number of tricks claimed and has demonstrated through words or actions that he is not confused or unfocused.

On this hand, a declarer who was focused/unconfused would see the possibility of taking 10 tricks if clubs didn’t break by either taking a heart finesse (and hoping south doesn’t have 5 spades + king of hearts) or end playing North. To me, this is an easy ruling - 3NT down 1.
April 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice play William!
April 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Chip,

What are you top-10 favorite movies?
April 4, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top