Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand is pretty exceptional. I think partner will understand.
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Suggestion: Add “Bid 7 if you would not have called 1 last round”.
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I really like this article. What to shift to at trick 2 when there is no obvious answer is a complicated question that most bridge books teach little about, since authors are usually focused on problems that have clearcut solutions.
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If North's hand was such that correcting to 4 would be reasonable (e.g., he held three good spades, or four of them, or three spades and not-so-robust hearts), it seems 5X-2 would be a fair adjustment. Presumably North is allowed to get the joke after South pulls 4X to 5.

Note that if it weren't for the psychic control, this would be a perfectly valid attempt at a psyche.

An interesting question would be whether this would still count as a psychic control if the agreement were that 2 followed by 4 showed 4+ hearts and 4+ spades, in a hand where responder wanted to stop in 3 if responder didn't fit spades. That would be a reasonable agreement for constructive purposes, and would make it terribly unlikely opener would bid over 4 without actually forbidding him from doing so. The 2 bid would probably require an alert, but since it would still be showing some spades, it would probably still dissuade the opponents from bidding spades.
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you want to investigate slam, you should start by using 2NT or 4NT over 1 to show both your suits.
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It could be a mistaken explanation, but it could also be a correct explanation followed by a psychic control. This should probably be construed adversely to the offender, since in either case there was an offense.
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bad hand. As Tom said, the range is a lot more than 0-5. 3 or 3 would show something like 8-bad 11 (maybe 7-10 HCP with a six-card suit) and be natural.
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True, but it's young players who are the future of the game.
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The agreement about 2 may or may not be legal, depending on the convention regulations in use. However, given that the agreement that 2 is natural, the agreement that 4 cannot be removed is illegal in all ACBL games as a psychic control.

Perhaps the OP could clarify that 2 was not alerted (which is tantamount to explaining it as natural in the ACBL) and that the agreement in question is the agreement that 4 cannot be removed.
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What does that have to do with anything, Tom? We aren't discussing an artificial opening bid, but an artificial response.
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On the contrary, what drives people away from tournaments is when the opponents give them a talking to directly rather than calling the director when it's needed.
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An agreement that a bid is lead-directing is not the same thing as an agreement to psyche.
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Was 4 alerted at the table?
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If there is some meaning to 2, like “wants a spade lead, does not necessarily have spades” and it is alerted, then I concur. But that does not appear to be the situation described, where 2 is described to the opponents as natural, but there is a concealed agreement that opener is never allowed to pull 4 to 4.
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You might want to rephrase your poll. The bid is legal, but the agreement certainly is not.
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Joel, it would not solve Greg's concern for him to play in non-bracketed events that are being run concurrently with the bracketed events where all the good players are playing.

Also, if it is possible for a DIC to assign extra points for bracketing purposes for a (non-foreign) player, please give us some more details. I am pretty sure that isn't done, but if it is there are obviously a lot of people in this thread, and a lot of up-and-coming players, who would like to take advantage of this.

Finally, what would you suggest as a next step for college players? The most enthusiastic of them play way above their masterpoint totals. Putting them in brackets where they have to play against mediocrities all day is a waste of their time and will turn them off to bridge forever.
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It seems to me that whoever interviews for the job of the next CEO of the ACBL should demand unfettered access to the member email list, so that if their program goes against the personal interests of board members (e.g.. to reduce the size of the board), he can get his message out to the membership at large.
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And would you wish for a bridge league to resemble a family-owned company?
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wouldn't play in a club these days, and if I did I wouldn't consider it “bridge” enough to care, so I assumed we were talking about a tournament. I agree “talking to” was a harsh choice of words, but that may have been a subconscious comment on what I felt was the general cluelessness of some of the recent discussions of this topic.
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If Hart and Darvas were writing today, perhaps the title of the book would have been “Right Through the Bidding Box”. :)
June 9
.

Bottom Home Top