Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I chose the first option, since I wouldn't say anything out loud during the play. I suspect I'd roll my eyes, though. And if declarer had a habit of doing this and squandered a trick as a result, I'd likely say “well-played” after the hand–sarcasm being a good way around ZT…
May 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe I should rephrase the question. Can the same hand be a one-suiter or 2 opening for you in 3rd/4th that would have been a 1 in 1st/2nd?
May 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit, I'm curious whether you do the same thing with _unbalanced_ hands in 3rd/4th seat–i.e., require an extra point to open 1 in 3rd/4th.
May 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Actually that's a splinter.” :)
May 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had a very good reason to use the word “cheating”. Namely, I don't want any readers of your post to be misled into thinking they can have a partnership agreement that they will not explain to their opponents, and I thought I should warn them that doing so would be cheating.

I had assumed that your post was simply unclear, not that you didn't understand the rules, nor that you personally were cheating. The fact that you are taking such umbrage is possibly clouding that conclusion….
May 11, 2016
Christopher Monsour edited this comment May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, that's a nice change from “There IS no explanation of responder's pass.” It's sounds like I have a strong enough grip to have brought you back to reality.
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Again, just because something is not alertable does not mean it's OK to fail to explain it properly if asked. Having concealed partnership agreements is collusive cheating and the sort of thing that can get someone expelled from bridge for a very long period of time, so it's kind of an important point.

From Law 20F1 (Explanation of Calls):
“ During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding….”
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Where did I mention an alert? Obviously, if your agreements depend on the meaning of pass, you will ask. If the opponents are playing that pass promises values and don't disclose this in response to a request for explanation, then they are cheating.
May 11, 2016
Christopher Monsour edited this comment May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are identifying a quite playable system as the underlying culprit. You are unfamiliar with the principle of expensive bids needing to be more precise than cheaper ones. To top all, you're addicted to Blackwood. You can say you don't think like a client. I can say “res ipsa loquitur”.
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you want to do that, that's fine, then rebid 2. 3 takes up too much space; it's ridiculous to bid it if you aren't willing to be raised on five-card support.
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Carefully”
or
“Carelessly would have been an improvement”
or
“Faster, since you weren't thinking”
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also that AKQxxxx presumably should not have made the 8-11 response. Oops, strike that, mixed this up with the other kickback thread…. :)
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, I don't want to find out if partner will bid 3NT now with a hand where he should have bid 2NT last round. I don't play with clients.
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think it's too good. I would hate to double, then bid spades over partner's minor and have partner think I just showed 4+ in the unbid minor with quite possibly only five spades.
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wonder if there are any pairs whose agreements after (1NT)-P-(P)- depend on the explanation of responder's pass?
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also, if you are going to be afraid to raise partner's 3 with those clubs, then you should bid 2 over 1 (as you will be willing to raise 2 to 3, surely?).
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“In the suit I bid first.”
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you have that hand, then 3 last round was a misbid. You had a clear 4 bid.

After all, opener doesn't have to bid 3 with any hand with four clubs. He had 2 and 2NT available.
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That much less likely? I think most people pass that hand. Do you really want a spade lead? Do you really want partner bidding 4 over 4 (which he will be prone to do at both vul at IMPs)?
May 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Between various pages North and East swap the 6 and 8, by the way.
May 11, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top