Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Burn
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 380 381 382 383
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“It isn't super difficult to tell that 3 is supporting of opener's suit.”

True, but it is quite difficult to tell that doubling 3 shows diamond support. If West wanted to support his partner's suit, maybe he could follow South's example and bid his partner's suit.
3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“if there was UI then a player could not choose from logical alternatives one that was demonstrably suggested by the said UI - thus reducing his chances of getting to the right contract”

Of course. That's bridge. If you have obvious things to do, you can do them. If you don't, you can't use UI to guide you.

“In the current wording you have greater latitude”

Yes, but you should not have. In effect you do not have, because if you use this “greater latitude” illegally your result will be annulled anyway.

But Gordon Rainsford and others have expressed the view that it won't, since at levels below the highest people are not very good at dealing with UI cases and prefer more “mechanical” procedures.

I myself think that the one fundamental reason, from which all other reasons follow, that bridge is not a very good game is that the Laws work moderately badly at the highest levels and not at all below that.

You only have to read these forums to realise the truth of this. Every single time a legal question is raised, people climb into the debate with their own points of view - but if the Laws were any good the outcome would not be in doubt.

People claim their contracts when they don't know what's happening, and when if they'd played on they'd have been down four. The Dear Hearts award them their contracts anyway. No one has a convention card, and people who ask questions are told lies and are not given redress. Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold…

If Samantha Punch really wants bridge kept alive, she should make it a question of immediate concern whether an insufficient bid should be treated as UI or as an offence punishable by death. Either would work. The current compromise will not.
23 hours ago
David Burn edited this comment 22 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
NS vulnerable at matchpoints, West described his hand pretty well with his sequence of blue and red cards.

But he described it exceptionally well with in-tempo redouble, in-tempo double, out-of-tempo double. Maybe with a low club and that king-value elsewhere, he would have done what he should have done anyway and bid 3, but he just couldn't bring himself to pass up the chance of plus 200.

To me, he's not allowed to differentiate that cleverly. East can pull an in-tempo double of 3, but not an out-of-tempo double.

Still, what I think doesn't matter - there were polls and there was an outcome, and I don't see from the write-up that there was an error in procedure.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, the Law uses the word “subset”, so it is simply false that the Law didn't mean “subset”. Some here have argued that it means “subset of hands”, others that it means “subset of meanings”, others still that it doesn't actually mean anything and should be ignored.

Henrik does a valiant job defending the indefensible, since he thinks it's obvious what the Law says. But if it were obvious what the Law says, Ton Kooijman and Max Bavin wouldn't have had to go into enormous detail describing what the Law says, nor would it be the case that even after they have gone into enormous detail, people still don't know what the Law says.

Moreover, what the Law actually says is that “UI doesn't apply, but if the offending side appears to gain from it then the score will be adjusted”. This in effect means that UI does apply, but we won't know until afterwards whether it actually did apply. Just treat these things as UI, and let the players get on with it.
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Declarer draws trumps and plays a diamond. Defend.
Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed, and that was well played - the spots are given as x's in the diagram, but maybe West's were such that South was sure his shift was a doubleton.

Mind you, this raises the disturbing possibility that West could have beaten the hand with spades 3-3 onside by shifting to a diamond that looked like a doubleton. Maybe South knew his opponents.

By the same token, of course, West could have saved the day by shifting to a diamond that didn't look like a doubleton. So the answer to the question posed by the OP is “definitely maybe”.
Dec. 8
David Burn edited this comment Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Can EW beat 3H?”

No. They should save over it in 4 doubled, down one.
Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“What does North promise for his negative double?”

Don't know, but since game will make if he has xxx xxxx Axx Qxx it doesn't seem totally unreasonable to bid it.
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you have a hand with which you would not pass initially, you would not have passed out of turn.
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Doesn't really matter what a pass of 1 would show - you didn't pass over 1. What matters is what an initial pass would show - as Henrik says, you can make any call that shows (exclusively) a hand that would have passed had it been your turn when you did pass.
Dec. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, he did what all bad claimers do - completely ignored the Laws relating to contested claims. Mind you, I have some sympathy.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, the boy can play - dedication, devotion, turning all the night time into the day…
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think I have ever disagreed with Paul Friedman or Debbie Rosenberg before, but I might or might not be in agreement with either or both of them when I say this:

“The Laws say (paraphrased) that at any level of the game, your opponents are entitled to know what agreements you have about the auction you are currently conducting (including the fact that you have no agreement about any individual call).

”The Laws stipulate that the Regulating Authority for any event specifies the form in which such disclosure takes place."

Now, it is open to the Regulating Authority for the Much-Festering-under-Lyme Bridge Club to specify that no one actually has to tell the opponents in advance what they play - if the opponents want to know what 1NT shows, they have to ask.

There are various reasons why such a policy would be undesirable, but those reasons would not make such a policy illegal. After all, the management of MFULBC might have noticed that none of its members can be bothered to produce a convention card.

Still, I am not sure I fully understand the OP - in events behind screens it doesn't matter how pitiful the advance disclosure is, because you can always ask at the time you need to know.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Unless North has eyes in the back of his head, I can't see him ever ruffing the heart.”

If you or I (or even John Cox) were North with A432, we would always ruff the heart. It cannot lose, and it might gain if our clown of a partner had shifted to K from his actual holding for reasons that doubtless seemed logical to him at the time.

And yet, we would have to admire those reasons after they caused declarer to go down in a cooler. As a famous chess player once said, the winner of a game is he who makes the penultimate mistake.

Mind, it is not yet clear to me whether that K shift belongs in the extremely rare category of Grosvenor Gambits that actually gain a trick. It has all the aspects, but the category itself may not be well defined.
Dec. 6
David Burn edited this comment Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Routine in England - arrive at table, “we play strong no trump, five-card majors, 1 maybe two, three weak twos”; “we play the same but 2 is a Multi”.

Also routine in England is the apologetic “we only have one convention card.” This, in my limited experience, differs from American practice of not apologising for having no convention cards.

Not sure this squares with the OP's experience behind screens - you can just ask the opponent. But I do not anticipate the principle of “tell 'em what you play” reaching the ACBL - or anywhere - very soon.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Could have been, I guess - 2NT slight overbid but maybe by less than 2 is an underbid, even facing third-seat opening.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Law should not encourage bad claims. Indeed, the Law does not encourage bad claims; it says that players should make good claims.

Players encourage bad claims (by making them all the time). Directors and appeals committees encourage bad claims (by allowing them when they ought not to be allowed). This should cease, but it will be a cold day in Hell before it does. This is one of the reasons bridge is not a very good game.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You're not thinking straight. If North with a low singleton heart would not ruff after K to the ace and a second round of the suit, why would a shift to K look logical to South (especially since it would result in a zero if East did in fact play that way)?

I am not, nor have I ever been, an attorney or any other member of the legal profession.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, yes, but the “inevitable heart ruff” blew the defence's inevitable heart trick. Declarer could not legitimately make the contract unless South's spade was the jack, and should probably not have played for his opponents to allow him to do so if it wasn't.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“But now declarer can pick up AJxx and Jxxx.”

Er… how?
Dec. 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 380 381 382 383
.

Bottom Home Top