Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Burn
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 323 324 325 326
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was open to the people who make the Laws to write “readily apparent” if they meant “readily apparent”. That they did not is perhaps an indication that they meant “capable of being demonstrated”, which is the readily apparent meaning of the word “demonstrable”.

Here, for example, it was not readily apparent to Paul Barden, a very strong player well versed in the Laws, that the UI suggested not bidding game. Only when this was demonstrated by some reasoning that might fall into the category of subtlety was he saved from the paths of destruction and led back into the light.

That is why you should not follow the interpretation in Duplicate Decisions. If you do, you will give wrong rules instead of right ones.
10 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Admirable”? I make no such claim, and nor would the WBF.

“The best one can do in the circumstances” is about right; the worst one could do in the circumstances would be to turn away teams whose governments would not let them play if an Israeli team were on the premises.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not sure what the options mean.

The best play for four tricks is to cash the ace. The best play for five tricks is to run the queen.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thought it was close.

To me, if we make a game we'll probably bid one whatever I open. But if I open 1NT and we get to a joke 5-2 major-suit fit when we could make 3 even on a 6-1 or 6-0, we chucked half a dozen IMPs for no reason.

Still, if the style is that I can't rebid 3 without another king or so (and I don't mind playing that way) I have to open 1NT. Silly to open 2NT - might as well open three.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course they do - the word is used that way in common parlance and it is right for dictionaries to reflect the fact.

But it is wrong to say that the word in the Laws of bridge does not have its default meaning of “capable of being demonstrated”. Fermat's Last Theorem is demonstrably true, even though to a very good approximation nobody knows why.

I suppose certain people might think differently. Why, only the other day someone suggested that something ought to be a word because it was one in his version of diachronic American English. He's a good egg, but not that good.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
May not make a lot of difference, but would West systemically lead the ace from any holding that included the ace?
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There seems to me to be an important distinction to be drawn between a team that refuses to play against Israel and a team that refuses to play against cheats.

In the former case the team is (presumably) acting in accordance with the wishes of its country’s government. If the WBF said “you have to play against Israel”, the Lebanese government would tell its citizens “in that case you don’t play at all”, and that would do harm primarily to Lebanese bridge (by depriving them of access to international competition) and to the game as a whole, which as far as possible should seek to distance itself from external political considerations.

If the WBF, laudably, wants to run its tournaments so that as many bridge players and bridge organisations as possible can take part, it should accommodate rather than sanction players who for reasons that have nothing to do with bridge cannot face certain opponents.

But if a team refuses to play against another team for reasons that are entirely to do with bridge, it is obvious that the WBF should be the ultimate arbiter of whether to accommodate such a refusal. And it is equally obvious that it should not; if it did, then a team against whom everyone refused to play would win every event it entered.

You may say that the WBF should in such a case not permit the tainted team to play. But if the WBF has followed its own procedures correctly, and those procedures result in no grounds on which to refuse entry to the tainted team, then it has no alternative to allowing them to play and to treating refusal to play against them for bridge-related reasons according to its procedures.

Since I don’t care a hoot about the Burgay tape, nor think it reasonable to expect M Damiani to know what the Americans did with some Americans’ money, I have no question to ask him. But he has done the game of bridge great service for many years, and for that I thank him.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here are two actions, A and B. Absent UI they are equally likely to work. With UI A is more likely to work than B.

If I can demonstrate this, then it is demonstrable (and A cannot legally be chosen). The Law says nothing about the subtlety or complexity of the demonstration, merely that it must exist.

I do not know what status the ACBL's Duplicate Decisions may have, but it cannot override the Law, nor can the ACBL make a regulation that does so. It is inaccurate to say that if A is only very slightly more likely than B to work, A is not demonstrably more likely than B to work: if the demonstration is sound, then the magnitude of the result is irrelevant. The phrases “demonstrably more likely” and “considerably more likely” are not synonymous.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for clarifications, apologies for obtuseness in not grasping the true situation, which now appears to me to be:

South, always intending to bid game, was taking care to bid it in a fashion that set up a forcing pass should the opponents compete; and

in so doing, he inadvertently acquired the UI that North would not bid game opposite a fit jump to 2.

As others have rightly said, even if you start out with a final contract firmly in mind this does not relieve you of your legal obligations. In particular, you must not select an action if logical alternatives exist that are not suggested by UI.

The Law defines a logical alternative as an action that would be considered and chosen by some of your peers; the fact that on this particular occasion you would neither consider it nor choose it because you have already determined otherwise does not matter.

Briefly: if you have UI you must put aside what you were “always going to do” and consider what legal options you have given the UI.

Here, South knows that North would not bid game opposite a spade suit and heart support. That is: North has either a hand that wouldn't bid game opposite anything, or a hand that might bid game opposite short rather than long spades opposite. Well, South has short rather than long spades, so cannot legally bid game.
April 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, it does. 0.0000002 is demonstrably greater than 0.0000001.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The part that confuses me is: did South think that 2 in competition showed a game force? And was this because uncontested it did show a game force? He presumably didn’t intend to raise to game by bidding 4 uncontested - what did he intend to do, and what would it have meant?

This sort of thing happens all the time - people say “values” and think that’s full disclosure. Values to do what?
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There may be some confusion over the meaning of this:

“South mistakenly bid 2 - which would have been the ‘values’ 4 card raise had there not been a Double.”

I don't know whether ‘values’ here means “values for game” or “values for at least three” (or even “values for exactly three”). So the OP needs to clarify:

What does the uncontested sequence 1-2 show?
What does the uncontested sequence 1-2NT show?

And his partner needs to explain why, if he was “always going to bid 4”, he didn't just bid it over the double. After all, it's not as if his side was likely to make a slam.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eh? South was expecting the explanation “game force”, because that's what he thought 2 meant.
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“If I bid 2NT to show clubs and partner, a passed hand, bids 3, I expect diamonds and clubs opposite from my regular partners.”

Sure, but that's not any kind of default meaning. Especially in a partnership that doesn't use a weak 2 opening, the default meaning for 3 is natural and non-forcing.

Put it this way: if you were my partner and you bid an in-tempo 3 I'd expect you to have diamonds and clubs, and I would bid 4. But if you bid a slow 3 I would raise to 5 (though I would still expect you to have diamonds and clubs).

When in possession of UI, you aren't allowed to make the system up as you go along. Of course, if you had enough diamonds to go with your clubs we might make it anyway, but since you would have opened a weak 2 with that I do not expect us to have much chance (if I thought 5 might make I would pass three).

“Without the UI, wouldn't you redouble?”

Of course not. For a start, partner might “rescue” us if he didn't have diamonds (or even if he did) and the legal implications of that are unclear.
April 16
David Burn edited this comment April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the D has a 3 on the back and the 7 does not have a D on the front, then the rule is true for the four cards you can see. Or is the objection that if the D did not have a 3 on the back, you would not then need to turn the 7?
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why would you need to turn the K?
April 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You always have difficulty imagining that partner can have a bad hand with a long suit. But sometimes the guy is dealt one and bids as if he were dealt one.

If I had J1098xxx and out I would rather my diamonds were trumps than partner's clubs, whatever he may think of the matter. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but my hand is worth four more tricks in diamonds than any other denomination.
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the first scenario I have the UI that partner has remembered the system, but that doesn't suggest anything. It seems odd that he would bid 3 if we don't have an agreement about it, but the fact that he bid it slowly provides the UI that he isn't just saying he wants to play in 3 despite the fact that I have clubs. So I had better act as though he does want to play in 3 despite the fact that I have clubs, and raise him to five (my hand is probably worth only four, but partners who saddle me with UI can expect to get punished).

In the second scenario I have the UI that partner thinks I have any two suits. This suggests that if I have clubs, partner wants to play in my other suit. I was going to raise him to five as per the previous scenario, but they just doubled three for penalty so I pass.
April 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I think that the genitive plural of Harris is Harrum, not Harrium”

Quite right. And of course Marshall would call the Harrises using the vocative, not the genitive.
April 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“What if responder holds xxx Axxx Kxx AKx instead?”

She should have opened the bidding. A good idea before answering any question is to read it.
April 14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 323 324 325 326
.

Bottom Home Top