Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It really ought to be about the strengths of the partnerships or teams, not just the psycher. I remember in a Vanderbilt match years ago with like #4 (them) vs #61 (us), the client psyched a 2NT opening on a yarborough. If it was just him vs us, that might have made sense strategically, but his top-expert partner must have silently moaned that his boss was making him work extra hard by trying to keep the match close…
April 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think Helgemo should weigh in on this one.
April 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course, the same thing could happen with entirely correct bidding and explanations, and reading the ending from it would clearly be fair game.
April 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If what I mentioned in the second paragraph seems unlikely, I do remember being dummy in 6NT once. Partner had misbid, and as declarer said before the opening lead that he had misbid and said what he thought his bids had meant (but without reading out his shape explicitly). Middle of the hand, an opponent asks again, so to make it easy on them, partner says his exact shape and honors (just the honors he thought he had shown during the auction). While it wasn't my partner's intent to gain an edge by that, I suspect the resulting “aha” moment for the opponent helped him read the ending correctly.
April 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's not *that* different from the current laws (in that directors are supposed to presume mistaken explanation unless there is at least some evidence of mistaken bid). It's not that different from current practice. (E.g., I've generally announced what I thought I showed as declarer before the opening lead, if I thought the explanations were wrong, and my partners have done likewise. Of course, we're the kind of folks who are unlikely to believe we misbid until partner has a chance to show us the system notes later.)

Interesting question is whether information generated by your announcement of your hand shape is UI to you. Quite commonly it seems to instantly solve a problem for the opponent.

It may even cause the opponents to misdefend (e.g., you tell them your actual shape, and they underlead their ace to get to partner's hand, but your singleton was the king.) Are the opponents now entitled to an adjustment if it was merely a mistaken bid, because you voluntarily proferred an explanation, not required by the laws, of what you intended your bid to mean that caused them to misdefend?
April 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Which solution are you referring to?
April 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not only an expert. Also non-experts who think they are experts.
April 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a statistician, when I read a statement like the one about the simulation above, I feel like AE Housman must have felt when he wrote:

“Textual criticism, like most other sciences, is an aristocratic affair, not communicable to all men, nor to most men. Not to be a textual critic is no reproach to anyone, unless he pretends to be what he is not. To be a textual critic requires aptitude for thinking and willingness to think; and though it also requires other things, those things are supplements and cannot be substitutes. Knowledge is good, method is good, but one thing beyond all others is necessary; and that is to have a head, not a pumpkin, on your shoulders and brains, not pudding, in your head.”
April 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dave, I take it by “passed hand bidding” in this context, you mean interventions over opener's rebid, after having passed initially. I can't imagine a robust system for that that could apply against standard, unless it included opening leads. :)
April 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not necessarily…May have been aiming for “safer” 3NT with extra points if opener was balanced but will to look for slam otherwise.
April 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree about preempts as dealer, Oren. I do think it changes preempts in other seats. For example, even if you don't play highly disciplined second seat preempts against other pairs, you should against Precision pairs since dealer's not having opened means so much more.
April 7, 2016
Christopher Monsour edited this comment April 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I find it hard to believe that it can possibly be optimal to play the same defense to a standard 1 and a Polish 1, since the latter is forcing. At the very least you can pass initially with a strong NT overcall and redeploy 1NT as Raptor or the like!
April 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's easy. The shapely hands that are included in the nebulous 1 all have substantial extra strength and a hope of bidding again, or have primary clubs, the suit that wins no competitive auctions and that other pairs struggle with identifying as a long suit also. On the other hand, the nebulous 1 opening includes minimum hands with long diamonds and simply loses diamonds in competitive auctions where everyone else is finding them.

Additionally, even with long clubs, with a minimum you don't open 1 in most variants of Polish, and in AUC you only open 1 on a minimum if you have a four-card major.

Of course, playing Precision, there are various partial solutions to the conundrum: You can use a 12-14 NT so that 1 can promise diamonds. (Assuming you are willing to open 1 on 15 balanced.) Also, assuming it's a legal convention in your event, you can use 2 to show the Precision 2 opening, and use a 2 opening to show a 6+ diamond one-suiter with 8-14 points. (Of course, that gives up having a weak two in hearts, and tends to wrong-side 4 contracts when opener opens 2.)
April 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I recall once seeing a Polish Club write-up (nothing to do with Reese) that used “transfers” to suits that were potentially four cards long. The same could be done in Precision.

In order to have 2 and 2 as transfers to 5+ card suits be workable in an uncontested auction, you really need a 2 opening that denies a four-card major–as in Unassuming Club.
April 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You have not suggested that there is any unauthorized information, so it clearly can't be ethically wrong to pass. You also haven't told us their system, so I don't see how I can agree with 100% systemically forced. The last option is a grammatical impossibility. (“Neither…and…”) So I abstain. But I can easily see how passing could be right in systems where rebidding 2 instead of raising immediately has boxed opener's hand as quite minimal.
April 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that it's not a fair rule. Millenium Club solves it by shifting non-strong hands from the 1 opening to the 1 opening, but that does lose one of the big advantages of AUC, namely 1 natural.
April 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unassuming Club doesn't require transfer responses (and classic Unassuming Club does not use them). I believe Millenium Club is a variant of Unassuming Club that does use transfer responses.

Also, I thought I heard a rumor that ACBL might change the rules on transfer responses. It certainly would be nice if they did. It's truly odd that I can respond 2 to 1NT to show 5+ hearts, but that it's illegal to have the same agreement over 1 !
April 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It can be useful to discuss your actions after 1-1-1M, which show the better major (3+) in a weak NT hand. (I am assuming all balanced hands pass RHO's Polish 1 initially.) When I used to encounter Polish Club frequently in the 90s I liked to play Fishbein over opener's 1M rebid. (Double for penalty, cheapest bid for takeout, but typically balanced with a doubleton or xxx in their suit. Also, over 1-1-1, 1 promised four spades and 1NT was takeout of hearts lacking four spades.)

In terms of fun, I like 1 = 5+ hearts, 1 = 4+ spades and a longer second suit or 5-5 majors, 1 = 5+ spades without 5 hearts, 1NT = four hearts and a longer minor, 2 = diamonds, real. 2 & up = natural preempts.
April 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, there is an obligation to appeal, but it is relative, not absolute. At a Regional I would certainly not bother appealing if it might interfere with dinner plans, for example, as at a Regional I would consider that to be a stronger obligation. If it happened a Nationals, that would be a closer decision.

I have a very low tolerance for the notion that I should be expected to waste my time to make up for inferior directing.
April 5, 2016
Christopher Monsour edited this comment April 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Also, note that I would not consider the auction by the OP to be a double-agreement auction. For RKC purposes, double agreement only happens immediately after the initial agreement, and never past game in our first agreed suit.
April 5, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top